Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

WESTERN ISLES ISLAND COUNCIL (KALLIN PIER, HARBOUR JURISDICTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Western Isles Islands Council (Kallin Pier, Harbour Jurisdiction); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 14 February and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Acid Rain

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a document containing the latest evidence relating to the effects of acid rain on the environment.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): A brief paper on acid deposition has been prepared for the Select Committee on the Environment, which will be investigating the subject. Copies will be placed in the Library. The paper includes references to a number of published reports.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Secretary of State stop being so complacent about this issue? Is he aware that the level of emissions of sulphur and nitrogen compounds in Great Britain is the highest in western Europe? Will he pledge full international co-operation to avert a menacing environmental catastrophe which threatens human beings, plants and animals in Europe?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure whether exaggeration would not be a worse crime than complacency. However, I vigorously deny any charge of complacency. The hon. Gentleman is making many assumptions which the scientific evidence does not support. That is why the recent Warren Spring report on acid deposition called for more research to be undertaken. My Department is stepping up substantially the amount that is being spent on research in this area.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his report is extremely welcome? May I draw to his attention the report of the Council of Europe, which was

presented last week in Strasbourg? I draw his attention also to the unilateral action of the German Government. Is it not worrying that one member of the Community should take unilateral action before we have adopted a Community approach?

Mr. Jenkin: It is only obviously desirable that, wherever possible, the community of nations should move in step. That applies to a wider sphere than the European Community. My hon. Friend knows that the United Kingdom is a signatory to the Geneva convention under the ECE and that we are taking an active role in the work of the bodies set up under that convention. The German Government clearly feel a greater need to move faster because of the effect of acid deposition on trees, and they are going ahead. We shall need to discuss the issue in the context of the Community's directive.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State in a position to inform the House whether he has received any representation from Wales, from individuals or from any organisation, through the Welsh Office or through the Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that the answer must be, "Not without notice."

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that before we take precipitate action, especially in respect of the rivers of Scotland, where obviously there have been some problems, we should first adopt a multi-disciplinary approach so that we obtain proper scientific answers and learn the cause of the problem?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right, and that is precisely the Government's approach. If we accepted the view of some and went into the retro-fitting—I think that that is the technical expression—of desulphurisation plant at existing power stations, the cost would be enormous and the extra cost to the consumer of electricity would be substantial. There is as yet no conclusive evidence that that would solve the problem.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Under-Secretary of State, who wrote to me recently and said that it was by no means clear whether even a substantial reduction in emissions would lead to significant environmental benefits? Does' the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he does agree with that statement he is flying in the face of objective scientific evidence? If he is not prepared to act responsibly on the international scene, will he accept some responsibility for the British people and start a monitoring programme, especially in urban areas?

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has studied the report from the Warren Spring laboratory and seen the extent of monitoring. I have accepted responsibility for increased research. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend's expertise in the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Nature Conservancy Council

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes announcing his decision on staffing of the Nature Conservancy Council.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Hardy: I do not expect the Minister to tell us exactly what the improvements will be, but does he accept that an increase in resources and staffing of the Nature Conservancy Council is desperately required and that the conservation world believes that unless there is an improvement the present arrears of achievement will become much worse?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman puts his question fairly. We are having discussions with the chairman of the council about this matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, last year we allowed the staffing numbers to be increased to meet the registration of sites of special scientific interest to go forward more quickly. We are aware of the pressures on the NCC.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if we are to make substantial progress with the notification of SSSIs and management agreements it is important to have adequate staff on the ground, with time to discuss matters with farmers and to come to a decision with flexibility?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this matter, is right. I think he will agree that there is a limit to the amount by which staff of the quality and experience needed can be increased, and the chairman has made that point to me.

Mr. Dalyell: In Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Morro) will remember, I spoke for an hour and 50 minutes—

Mr. Corbett: Not long enough.

Mr. Dalyell: Clearly not long enough—on the issue of the Halvergate marshes. Do the Government intend to do nothing to protect one of the last water meadows in Europe—the Halvergate marshes?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government have already taken action and told the Broads authority that it can spend up to 75 per cent. of the cost of any management agreement entered into. That is an advance on 50 per cent., which is the normal provision. I hope that, on that basis, the management agreements will be achieved.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: If my hon. Friend looks at the facts, he will see that by 1 January only 714 out of the 4,000 SSSIs had been renotified and only 142 new SSSIs had been notified. If we are to protect the habitats that are at the core of conservation, this year we must make more rapid progress with notification.

Mr. Waldegrave: Those are the very matters under discussion between the Department and the chairman of the NCC.

Noise Levels

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the legislation concerning noise levels in urban areas.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): My right hon. Friend has responsibility for

noise nuisance under part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. That legislation is kept under review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has responsibility for aircraft and road traffic noise.

Ms. Short: Is the Minister aware that the problem of urban noise from workplaces, traffic and neighbours is a major source of irritation and complaint? Will he agree to review the legislation, especially the methods of enforcement, so that we have a system which is speedier and more effective than the present cumbersome machinery?

Mr. Gow: I agree with the hon. Lady. For that reason, we are keeping this legislation under continual review.

Mr. Alexander: Will my hon. Friend take steps to curb the noise from faulty motorcycle exhausts? Is this not one of the nastiest forms of urban pollution? Does he recollect that our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport offered a consultation paper of some sort on the subject which she said would be available shortly, and we are still awaiting it?

Mr. Gow: Responsibility for motorcycle noise rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence to low-flying aircraft, which cause tremendous noise and upset many people?

Mr. Gow: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Marlow: Is not one of the noisiest problems in our urban areas caused by those savage people who leave their dogs at home all day? What do the Government intend to do about that?

Mr. Gow: Mercifully, responsibility for dogs rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Ms. Richardson: Will the Minister consider conducting inner city noise audits? Is he aware that it is very difficult for mothers with children, who are escaping from their home environment — from unsuitable flats — to obtain a bit of fresh air, because of all the noise, machines, fumes and so on? Would it not be a good idea to conduct that kind of audit?

Mr. Gow: I shall certainly consider the hon. Lady's suggestion sympathetically.

National Park Authorities

Mr. Patchett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the "Review of the Economic Efficiency of National Park Authorities", published by the Countryside Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend has received the report and copies have been deposited in the Library. We shall be discussing further with the parties concerned.

Mr. Patchett: Does the Minister accept that while some Tories like the idea of privatising national parks, their main interest is to loosen planning regulations on buildings, mining, mineral extraction and caravan parks


so that profit will be more important than the scenic and environmental worth of national parks? An unprecedented number of active Tories have been put on national parks committees. Will the Minister confirm that national parks are not up for private profit?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is a bit off the track. The reason for commissioning the report was to see whether the parks were working efficiently. The report made a number of suggestions about how they could work better. The Government stand by the national park movement and will finance it at a proper level.

Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Dartmoor national park is grossly overgrazed near the edges of the moor and undergrazed at the centre? Will he consider increasing financial resources for the Dartmoor national park so that it can promote the Bill currently before the House? It includes a self-regulatory power for the 1,500 commoners as well as protecting environmental and conservation interests.

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall shortly be visiting the park, and I shall then have an opportunity to learn more about the issues and discuss them afterwards with my hon. Friend and others.

Nitrate Pollution

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any recent indications of increased levels of nitrate pollution in public water supplies.

Mr. Gow: The Royal Society's report "The Nitrogen Cycle of the United Kingdom" which has just been published confirms that nitrate levels are increasing in some surface and groundwaters. This can affect nitrate levels in some public water supplies. My Department is considering that report.

Mr. Taylor: As the report says that a major contributory factor to the further rise in already worrying nitrate levels is the massive increase in the use of nitrate fertilisers by farmers, is my hon. Friend willing to have urgent talks with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see what steps can be taken to improve the situation? How on earth can it be sensible for us to spend millions of pounds importing fertilisers to produce more and more cereals which no one wants to buy?

Mr. Gow: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the point about the production of cereals. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree that a contributory factor to the problem to which he has drawn attention is the increasing use of nitrogen. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my Department are considering a code of practice which could be issued to help solve the problem.

Mr. Spearing: As the hon. Gentleman is a Minister at the Department of the Environment, is it not his responsibility, first, to lay down pollution levels for our inland waters to ensure that the public water supply to which he has referred is not polluted, and secondly, to ensure that other persons, including farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture, keep within those limits?

Mr. Gow: It is my responsibility, and I intend to discharge it.

Green Belts

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue the revised draft circular on green belts.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Revised drafts of the circular on green belts and of the circular on land for housing are being published tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.
I hope that the revised drafts will be seen to reflect a balanced and workable approach both to the need for development and to a proper concern for conservation.

Mr. Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that he has taken in this regard, but does he understand the concern which the original circulars caused in areas such as north Worcestershire, where the green belt is under severe pressure from motorway construction, gravel pit extraction, the predatory eyes of neighbouring authorities, and, not least, the view expressed by his own regional controller that the area should provide a larger proportion of land for long-term housing needs?

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely understand what my hon. Friend says. I must take into account the outcome of the considerations of the Hereford and Worcester structure plan, on which I am awaiting the report of the panel on the examination in public.

Sir Anthony Grant: Although I welcome any steps that are necessary to prize out land that is being unnecessarily hoarded by covetous local authorities and other public bodies, will my right hon. Friend be in no doubt whatever that any further incursions into the green belt will not be tolerated in Cambridgeshire?

Mr. Jenkin: I think my hon. Friend will find that the revised draft circular will go a long way to meet his concerns.

Mr. Chapman: I assume that the revised draft circular will extol the virtues and successes of green belt policy in the past and the need to maintain and protect green belts in the future, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the advice given in it will be equally applicable to authorities which either do not need planning permission before developments or which can give themselves planning permission? As an extra safeguard for those green belts, will my right hon. Friend consider whether applications of that sort by such authorities should be determined by himself?

Mr. Jenkin: It is difficult for me to generalise on the matter, but I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and will see that account is taken of it.

Dr. David Clark: As this question has been on the Order Paper for two weeks, is it not rather discourteous to the House to publish the draft circular tomorrow? Would it not have been much more helpful if we had had the draft circular in front of us so that we could question the Secretary of State on the details?

Mr. Jenkin: We had always scheduled the publication for tomorrow. The printing and dispatch present a substantial administrative task, and its publication was timed for tomorrow. In view of the length of the documents, I very much doubt whether the hon. Gentleman—despite, I am sure, his quick reading—would have been able to make much of them for Question Time today if they had been published this afternoon.

Rates

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering any further reforms of the rating system.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is currently considering any proposals for rating reform.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Part III of the Rates Bill contains a number of proposals to reform the rates to make local authorities more accountable to ratepayers, both business and household. I have no immediate plans for further legislative reforms.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend perhaps agree with me that local democracy will remain pretty meaningless until such time as a far greater proportion of those who actually enjoy local authority services pay for them out of their own money? Does he further agree that perhaps the most sinister defence of the present system comes from those who operate under the wholly antidemocratic slogan, "We vote, but you pay"?

Mr. Jenkin: We dwelt at some length on the declining nexus between rates and votes when I moved the Second Reading of the Rates Bill. I am not sure whether this is what my hon. Friend proposes, but if we were to seek to provide that rates should be paid by the substantial number of families who at present enjoy rate rebates, that would be difficult to justify in terms of equity.

Mr. Hicks: In the absence of any unanimity on introducing alternative systems of rating, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be eminently sensible to transfer responsibility for teachers' salaries and funding of the police from local authorities to central Government? Would this not end the wrangling, confusion and, indeed, ill-feeling that occur every year at this time?

Mr. Jenkin: I am very well aware of the ill-feeling that has been caused in a number of areas, but I question whether what would be seen as a massive further centralisation of decision-taking across the whole range of local authority responsibilities would be a sensible step to take at this juncture.

Mr. Cartwright: As the Secretary of State has gone for rate capping instead of tackling the admittedly difficult problem of finding a much broader and fairer replacement for the existing rating system, can he tell the House what reductions in rate bills he expects will result from the principle of rate capping?

Mr. Jenkin: There is a later question on the Order Paper about that.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Secretary of State recall giving an oral answer to me last autumn when I raised with him the inequity of present rateable values, where similar or identical properties often have different rateable values? Does he recall answering that I should wait and see the legislation for the answer to this problem? Does he agree that in the legislation before the House he has totally failed to tackle this serious problem?

Mr. Jenkin: We have announced that we intend to hold a non-domestic revaluation to correct the distortions that have developed due to changed relative values of business property, and we are urgently considering the case for a domestic revaluation.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: While obviously welcoming the Rates Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look very carefully at the situation of industrialists, who at present get a very rough deal? I am told, and we all know, that they get a vote in their own homes. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the possibility of their being given the opportunity to vote where they work?

Mr. Jenkin: There used to be a business vote, but throughout the country there were only about 150,000 registered business voters, because the entitlement applied only to small sole traders and partners. I doubt whether it would find much favour with the House to try to extend the vote to companies.

Mr. Straw: We all appreciate the Secretary of State's embarrassment at the Prime Minister's personal failure to meet her promise to abolish the domestic rating system, but will the right hon. Gentleman understand that concern about aspects of the rating system has not in any sense been resolved by the introduction of the Rates Bill, as evidenced by early-day motion 434, signed by 32 of his hon. Friends? Given the way in which the common agricultural policy's costs have been escalating out of control, and the buoyancy of farm incomes, particularly cereal farm incomes, does the Secretary of State agree that serious consideration should be given to the question of agricultural re-rating?

Mr. Jenkin: We considered the question of agricultural re-rating in our consideration of the whole of local government finance in the period before the general election, and we came to the conclusion that, because agricultural profits are very evenly balanced at present, it would be wrong to upset that balance by reintroducing a liability for rates, when agricultural property and buildings have not paid rates since the 1920s.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Tyne and Wear county council concerning his proposals to abolish metropolitan county councils.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend has received the council's response to the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities". This calls for the withdrawal of the White Paper and for an inquiry to be held before any reorganisation takes place.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that the people in my area see the threat to abolish the Tyne and Wear county council as an act of spite and vindictiveness because it is Labour-controlled and is carrying out progressive policies in the interests of the community as a whole? Before he asks, "What business interests?", may I ask whether he is further aware that regularly — almost daily—I receive letters from businesses in my area saying that they would not be in business now if it were not for the help that they are getting from the Tyne and Wear county council, because they are getting no help from that lot over there?

Mr. Waldegrave: One thing that we think will bring much greater help to businesses and ratepayers in the hon. Member's area, and other areas, is a diminution in the overhead of Government on the citizen and the ratepayer.

Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the West Midlands metropolitan council is proposing to take—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Tyne and Wear.

Dr. Cunningham: Why will the Government not publish in the House of Commons Library the representations made to them following the consultation period, which include representations not only from Tyne and Wear but from other metropolitan county councils? Why does the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary consistently refuse to tell the House anything about the claims that they are making for the financial savings that will result from their threadbare White Paper proposals?

Mr. Waldegrave: A written answer is on the way to the hon. Gentleman in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that he intends to put in the Library a list of the principal organisations that have responded. I have no doubt that these bodies will be prepared to provide the Library with copies of their submissions. This is according to normal procedure.

Planning Applications

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the speed with which planning applications are being dealt.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): Most local authorities are to be congratulated on achieving and sustaining marked improvements in the speed of their decisions on an increasing volume of applications. I hope that all local authorities will follow that example.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the second quarter of 1983 26 per cent. of the planning applications to the Peak District national park took longer than three months to determine? Is he further aware that that is a deterioration of 3 per cent. on the second quarter of 1982? What will he do about it?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in this matter for a long time. I am not satisfied with the statistics and I shall want to look closely at what my hon. Friend said. We have taken steps designed to examine authorities that are lagging in performance. Most local planning authorities have made an improvement. Some slow improvement has been made by the Peak District park planning board since 1981, but clearly the figures remain unacceptable.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that so long as one planning application remains on the table at Teesside the whole area will be blighted? I refer to the application to bury nuclear waste under houses on Teesside. Will the Minister cut short that application by making it clear to NIREX, which has made it, that a proposal to put nuclear waste under houses will not be tolerated?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman must remember the timing of such matters. No such application has been received by my Department. That is how the matter stands at the moment.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend re-examine the system of appeals against non-determination within the eight-week period? Does he agree that there is no advantage to applicants who appeal under that procedure, because they might as well let the local authority take its course since the appeal procedure is equally slow?

Mr. Macfarlane: I take my hon. Friend's point. We have done something by issuing a circular on the conduct of appeals, with the aim of achieving speedy decisions. I hope that my hon. Friend's example is acknowledged by the circular.

Vacant Land (Sales)

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require the owners of vacant sites included in the land registers to offer by way of a public sale without reserve price 5 per cent. of their holdings in 1982.

Mr. Macfarlane: No, Sir. In considering whether to use powers of direction I am bound to have regard to the circumstances of individual sites.

Mr. Pawsey: As about 110,000 acres of public land are still owned by local authorities, and as about only 4 per cent. of land on the registers has been sold, what action will my hon. Friend take to speed up the release of such important assets?

Mr. Macfarlane: I endorse my hon. Friend's concern. That is why we are not satisfied with the disposal rate and are stepping up the pressure on owners to explain what they intend to do with sites which do not seem to be needed for their own purposes and are capable of development.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that prior to 1979, and during that election campaign, almost all the Conservative candidates, and the Conservative Government that followed, claimed that they had a solution to get rid of the land so that more houses could be built and none of the questions asked by his hon. Friend would need to be asked again? After five years, despite a slight increase in private sector house building on some of that land, public sector house building has dropped to a very low level. What have they been doing for the past five years?

Mr. Macfarlane: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has not been taking a close interest in what has happened during the past four or five years. Since the legislation was passed in 1980 and the scheme began, nearly 10,000 acres have been disposed of. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of what has happened and perhaps take a closer interest in future.

Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern about the non-availability of building land, which is likely to lead to a crisis before the next election? Will he consider once again using his powers to compel recalcitrant local authorities, particularly in cities in the east midlands, not to hold on to land which they do not need so that building does not overspill into constituencies like mine?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am almost inclined to say that I shall refer that question to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has raised a very important point. We shall consider the matter closely and continue to encourage a speeding up of this process.

Gleneagles Agreement

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a progress report on discussions about the Gleneagles agreement between himself and the president of the Rugby Football Union.

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans any further measures in the light of the Gleneagles agreement to seek to discourage the Rugby Football Union from its proposed tour of South Africa.

Mr. Macfarlane: I have had discussions with the Rugby Football Union and these will continue. The Government oppose the proposed tour, because of their support for the Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport and also because of the potential implications of the tour for other sports and events.

Mr. Robertson: Since the impending tour threatens Britain's participation not just in the next Commonwealth games but possibly in the Olympic games, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister, when in Delhi for the Commonwealth conference, expressed support not just for the spirit but for the letter of the Gleneagles agreement, may I ask when the Prime Minister will call in officials of the English Rugby Football union and tell them that this tour must be called off?

Mr. Macfarlane: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can anticipate that. Clearly, responsibility is vested in my Department. I shall be considering over the next few weeks, in the run-up to the meeting that will take place on 30 March with the Rugby Football Union representatives, exactly what the Government may do after that. I have had several meetings with representatives of the Rugby Football Union during the past four or five months. I hope that tour does not take place.

Mr. John Carlisle: Although I understand my hon. Friend's obligation under the Gleneagles agreement to discourage the Rugby Football Union from taking part in this tour, does he not now think that the objections he has made have gone far enough and that he should cease putting pressure on the union? Will he accept that persuading minsterial colleagues not to go to international rugby matches because a team of South African schoolboys came here may find favour with the Leader of the Opposition but cuts no ice on this side of the House?

Mr. Macfarlane: I do not know how my hon. Friend defines pressure, but there are serious and far-reaching implications for British sport as a whole if the tour goes ahead. Successive Prime Ministers have underlined the importance of the Government's commitment to the Commonwealth's declaration on apartheid in sport. That is why the Government and my Department have a responsibility to ensure that all governing bodies in sport are conversant with the requirements.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree that it ill becomes Tory Members of Parliament to go on trips to South Africa, which are paid for by the racist Government of that country, and then to come back and advocate action that could endanger the next Commonwealth games at Edinburgh, which are far more international and more important to the world of sport than a rugby match between South Africa and any country in the world?

Mr. Macfarlane: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with me. Hon. Members travel wherever they wish. I have faith that the members of the Commonwealth acknowledge the Government's commitment to the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport. They understand that we are totally committed to that. I have faith that they will be represented in Edinburgh in 1986.

Mr. Nelson: Is my hon. Friend aware that while many of us understand his official position, we are disappointed that a Conservative Minister should involve himself in sporting matters of this kind? Is it not now abundantly clear that the Gleneagles agreement — so unwisely entered into by a previous Labour Government—is now forcing sport generally, and rugby in particular, to pay a heavy price? Can my hon. Friend name a single instance where a sporting, or any other boycott, has had any influence on subsequent policies?

Mr. Macfarlane: On the latter point, I would not want to become engaged in a historical appreciation of sanctions or boycotts. I am sure my hon. Friends will understand that. However, I must remind my hon. Friend that as recently as last November, in New Delhi, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the Gleneagles agreement. That was on the agenda of that conference, and there was no change in the current commitment.

Mr. Lofthouse: Do the Government have any plans —[Interruption.]—to assist the advance of rugby league football, whose administrators would, I believe, never think of touring South Africa?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am sorry, but I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Lofthouse: Has the Minister any plans to encourage and assist the advancement of rugby league football, whose administrators would, I am sure, never think of touring South Africa?

Mr. Macfarlane: The rugby league authorities are infinitely better placed than I to encourage an expansion of that game.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have supported the Gleneagles agreement—and, indeed, remember the occasion when Mr. Vorster tried to pick the English cricket team by excluding Basil D'Oliveira — fear that the whole policy is facing collapse when we see teams of black West Indian cricketers touring South Africa?

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I ask him to reflect on the theory—often expressed by many people concerned with multiracial sport—that one cannot have normal sporting relations in an abnormal society.

Dr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition applaud and welcome his courage and consistency on this matter? Is it not clear that, in spite of his considerable efforts, the Rugby Football Union is planning to go ahead with this tour? Given his confirmation that only very recently the Prime Minister reaffirmed this country's pledge on this issue, embodied in the Gleneagles agreement, should not the Prime Minister now intervene personally to prevent this


disastrous tour? Will the Minister assure the House that if the tour proceeds, no more public financial support will be given to the Rugby Football Union?

Mr. Macfarlane: The responsibility for dealing with the governing bodies in this country rests with myself and within my Department. It is quite clear that the role of the Rugby Football Union over the next few weeks is absolutely critical, if it believes in encouraging and enhancing rugby football throughout the 100 or so countries that now play the game. All 56 members of the Rugby Football Union must now closely consider the potential damage.
I am not in the business of imposing sanctions, especially if one hurts those who are looking for grass root money support for coaching and encouragement well away from the governing body. However, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

Local Authority Associations

Mr. Cowans: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to meet representatives of the English local authority associations.

Mr. Gow: My right hon. Friend expects to meet the local authority associations — [Interruption.] — at the Consultative Committee on Local Government Finance — [Interruption.] — in the spring and at the Housing Consultative Committee — [Interruption.] — in early summer.

Mr. Cowans: I did not hear the answer, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it can be repeated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members below the Gangway will conduct their conversations outside the Chamber.

Mr. Gow: My right hon. Friend expects to meet the local authority associations at the Consultative Committee on Local Government Finance in the spring and at the Housing Consultative Committee in early summer.

Mr. Cowans: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The Secretary of State and Ministers allege that savings of £120 million will be achieved following the abolition of the metropolitan authorities, but they do not say where or how those savings will be made, whether through loss of jobs or otherwise. When the Minister next meets the local authority associations, will he at least tell them, although he will not spell it out to the House, how those savings of £120 million will be made?

Mr. Gow: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have an interesting discussion on that topic when next he meets local authority association representatives. However, we shall be able to vindicate the estimated savings to the House and the country only when the Bill reaches the statute book and is in operation.

Mr. Hickmet: Will my hon. Friend inform the Secretary of State that, when next he meets representatives of the metropolitan authorities, many of them will be deeply disappointed that although the metropolitan authorities, the Inner London education authority and the GLC are about to be abolished — which is to be applauded—no proposals have been made for the future of the counties of Humberside and Avon? The then Secretary of State gave a commitment in 1974 that the

position of Humberside county would be reviewed 10 years after its creation. Will my hon. Friend give a commitment about when a review will take place?

Mr. Gow: I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Tony Banks: How many of the representatives of local authorities have expressed support for the Government's proposals outlined in Cmnd. No.9063, "Streamlining the Cities", and how many representations has the Minister received in favour of the proposals in that paper?

Mr. Gow: Not as many as I would have wished. I expect the number of those who support our proposals to increase as time proceeds.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to confirm to the local authority associations at their next meeting that, despite the difficulties over legislating for reform of local authority finance, the Government not only agree on the need to broaden the base, but are in general agreement about the way in which that reform should go?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend should not exaggerate the difficulties. This Government will overcome all difficulties.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister discuss with the local authority associations the need for a rating revaluation, something that is now long overdue? Is the Minister aware that local authority associations and local councillors are very much aware of the anomalies suffered by many ratepayers because revaluation has not taken place? Will there be an early announcement about revaluation?

Mr. Gow: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that it saddens many of us to say that the local authority associations are likely to agree with many of us that the present policy is born out of panic and despair and does not stem from a genuine wish to reform local authority finance? Does not my hon. Friend accept that the current system is not able to bear the strains that it must bear and that, unless we are willing to do what we said we would do in 1974 and in 1979 and reform the system, we shall lose all credibility when stating our belief in local authority democracy?

Mr. Gow: Panic and despair are not the characteristics of my right hon. Friend. It is legitimate to remind my hon. Friend of the commitment made in the Conservative party's manifesto. The Rates Bill is a specific and detailed implementation of that commitment.

Mr. Straw: I return to the alleged £120 million saving from the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, which the Minister says he will discuss with the local authority associations. Is the Minister aware that that claim of a saving has already been made in an official ministerial document dished out in the Conservative Whips' Office? Given that that rough estimate has already been arrived at, why does the Minister consistently refuse to give details of how it has been calculated? Is it because the figure has been fabricated? If not, why is there the refusal to give the House the information that it deserves?

Mr. Gow: I commend to the hon. Gentleman the document provided by the Whips' Office. If it was provided by the Office of the Patronage Secretary, it will be well worth studying.

Empty Houses

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to reduce the number of empty houses in the public sector.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Measures available to councils to bring back into use vacant dwellings are set out in the Department's report "Reducing the Number of Empty Dwellings". My Department takes numbers of empty dwellings into account in making housing investment programme allocations. Particular attention was paid to council's bids to bring long-term vacant dwellings back into use in deciding the allocations for 1984–85.

Mr. Alton: Given that the number of empty dwellings, both in the public and the private sector, probably exceeds the figures for people on waiting lists by about four to one, and given also that empty houses can be breeding grounds for vermin, derelict and ugly eyesores and potential tinder boxes, does the Minister agree that it is time to implement the terms of the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) yesterday? Does he further agree that incentives should be given to local authorities to enter into joint partnership schemes to sell hard-to-let dwellings at a low cost?

Sir George Young: The Government have introduced a number of measures with exactly the objective that the hon. Gentleman outlined. We have encouraged homesteading and made it possible for local authorities to carry out improvements with a view to selling such houses. We have given mortgage guarantees and encouraged local authorities to sell vacant properties at a discount to people on the waiting list. We shall consider the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) yesterday. However, at the end of the day, responsibility for managing the stock rests with the local authorities.

Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way of concentrating the minds of many Socialist authorities is to require them to sell by public auction properties which they are not letting at the moment? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to that effect at an early stage?

Sir George Young: Of course the Government will consider that suggestion. Penalties are imposed on local authorities which leave dwellings vacant for more than 12 months, through the loss of subsidy on the housing revenue account. However, we shall consider further measures to increase the incentive to dispose of vacant dwellings.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware that the plea of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) will ring hollow in Liverpool, as the Liberal party was guilty of almost criminal neglect of public housing there? In view of what the hon. Gentleman said, will the Minister take on board the fact that the draconian cuts in the housing investment programme in Liverpool will mean that those

houses will remain empty and the waiting lists will remain high, with some 14,000 people waiting for public sector rented housing?

Sir George Young: I am not quite sure who is responsible, but on 1 April last year 2,248 local authority dwellings were vacant in Liverpool. Some of the measures that we have introduced do not require investment by the local authority; for example, homesteading and improvement for sale schemes get subsidies from the Government.

Mr. Maples: Is my hon. Friend aware that my council owns more than 2,000 empty properties, costing over £2·5 million a year in lost rates and rents? Is my hon. Friend further aware that one of its main excuses is that such property usually needs repair? Will he consider at least encouraging local authorities to rent empty properties to tenants who are willing to do the repairs themselves?

Sir George Young: Yes, Sir. We have taken into account in the HIP allocation this year the local authorities' proposal for bringing such dwellings back into use. That can be done without substantial investment by the local authorities.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Minister recognise that some of the older properties in need of repair require disproportionately high expenditure if they are to be brought back into use, and that cutting the HIP programme means that some of those properties will remain empty? Secondly, will he give a greater subsidy where there are disproportionately high costs of repair for old property, particularly terraced property, in some of the inner cities?

Sir G. Young: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question. We have made £2·5 billion available in HIP allocations for the forthcoming year, and that should be enough to make a substantial impact on the number of vacant dwellings that we have been discussing.

Greater London (Sports Council)

Ms. Harman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what correspondence he has had relating to the proposed new boundaries of the Greater London regional sports council.

Mr. Macfarlane: My Department has received 59 letters commenting on these proposals.

Ms. Harman: As nearly all of those 59 letters from London sports organisations are likely to be critical of the arbitrary proposal to redraw the boundaries, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will play ball with the London sports organisations and reconsider his decision, and perhaps agree to meet a delegation from them so that they can put him on the right track?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give the hon. Lady that assurance. These are matters for the Sports Council and for the Greater London and South-East Regional Council on Sport and Recreation. It is not for me to impose decisions on the regional councils.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that within these boundaries is the Crystal Palace sports complex, which is owned and managed by the GLC? Is it not also a fact that the Government's proposals will make it impossible to run a London-wide administration, not only for that complex


but for others, which should be built elsewhere in London for Londoners? Is this not an affront to the people of London, whatever their normal political persuasions?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman has not completed his research. Crystal Palace is a national sports centre and it also provides some local facilities. It is jointly funded by the Sports Council and the GLC. It is not specifically for local authorities; it is, as I say, a national sports centre as well.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Is there any link between these proposals and a possible attempt at a more equitable sharing out of grant-aid?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Inner London (Services)

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he makes of the additional costs of running local services in inner London.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The GRE assessments take account both of the extent of social deprivation in many inner London boroughs and of higher labour costs. Inner London boroughs have the 10 highest GREs per head in the country on non-education services.

Mr. Banks: As the City of London is perhaps 227 per cent. over its GRE, why does not the right hon. Gentleman bring forward proposals to abolish the City of London, as one of the great overspenders?

Mr. Jenkin: The House might be more impressed if, instead of asking that rather pointless question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—the hon. Gentleman stood up and told us whether he supports Mr. Livingstone's demand that the Labour party should defy the law on rate-capping. Will he, or will he not?

Mr. Banks: Yes.

Empty Council Houses

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of empty council properties in the Greater London council area.

Sir George Young: In their housing investment programme returns, London local authorities reported 32,600 dwellings vacant as at 1 April 1983.

Mr. Cox: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the housing problems of London worsen month by month? Is it not an utter disgrace that so many council houses are left empty, either because authorities, such as mine in Wandsworth, are deliberately keeping them empty—to sell them off irrespective of housing need—or because authorities just do not have the money to make the necessary repairs to put those houses back into habitation? When will the Government tackle the issues, stopping authorities from deliberately keeping houses empty and helping authorities which genuinely wish to bring their housing stock back into habitation?

Sir George Young: I urge those local authorities to offer the vacant dwellings to people on the waiting lists or to existing council tenants and to use the receipts from the sales to make faster progress with their housing programmes.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister aware that the cuts in the housing improvement finance mean that Conservative boroughs such as Croydon and Labour boroughs such as Lambeth have had to cut repair and improvement grants to the private sector, so that there is neither money for the local authority to undertake this work nor for the private sector to do so? Will the hon. Gentleman stop deceiving the House by saying that there is enough money to cover these things in local authority budgets?

Sir George Young: It is sheer hypocrisy for the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will wish to withdraw that remark.

Sir George Young: Of course I withdraw it.
The sum available for improvement grants this year is £600 million, which is four or five times higher than it was in 1979 when the hon. Gentleman was in Government.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Smith, to ask question No. 26. The following question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses were started in 1983; and how this compares with 1982.

Mr. Gow: About 187,000 dwellings were started in England last year, as compared with 166,000—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is here.

Lebanon (British Troops)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, we have been considering closely and urgently the situation in Lebanon where conditions and the prospects for achieving reconciliation have deteriorated sharply in the past few days. The Lebanese Government have resigned and factional fighting has broken out again on a large scale.
The British contingent to the multinational force has been performing two important tasks; carrying out street patrols in Beirut and, at the request of all the parties, providing an impartial guard for the ceasefire talks. With the recent deterioration in the situation, it has become impossible for it to fulfil this role, and the danger to the contingent has been greatly heightened.
In these difficult circumstances, we have been in close touch with our MNF partners, and the Government have decided that our troops should be moved to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Reliant which is stationed off the Lebanese coast and remain there until the situation becomes clearer. The House will be glad to know that the major part of this redeployment has already been successfully completed.
The British contingent has earned a high reputation among all Lebanese as an impartial force. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that it has carried out its tasks in Beirut with exemplary courage and efficiency. It has played an important part in contributing to stability in the Beirut area and in providing an opportunity for political reconciliation. It is a tragedy that this opportunity has not been seized.
We continue to have very prominently in our minds the safety of British residents in the Beirut area. I am glad to be able to report that I have received no reports of any casualties. For those British residents who may wish to leave, appropriate arrangements are being put in hand. British embassy staff are safe and well and their position is being kept under close review. I should like to pay tribute to the British ambassador in Beirut, Mr. David Miers, and his staff, who have been performing their duties under very difficult conditions.
The need for the restoration of stability, sovereignty and independence to Lebanon remains of the highest importance. We shall stay in close touch with our MNF partners, with the Lebanese Government and with all those who can help in this process. If needless bloodshed is to be avoided, a supreme effort must now be made by all the parties to settle their differences by compromise.

Mr. Denis Healey: I shall say first how much the Opposition welcome the withdrawal of British troops from Beirut. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we think it is long overdue. I should like to join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the courage and efficiency of our troops and, indeed, to the British embassy in Beirut.
I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, that many of us are still disturbed at the Government's failure to organise the evacuation of British civilians, particularly women and children, who wish to leave, especially as it is five days since the Government began to plan the evacuation of military personnel there.

I hope that the Government accept that it is the duty of the British Government in all circumstances to protect the safety of British civilians in such dangerous situations to the utmost of their ability.
On the wider aspect of the problem to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, let me ask him one or two questions. First, did Her Majesty's Government receive a request from President Gemayel for the withdrawal of British troops, as President Reagan says he did? Secondly, do the Government recognise that the withdrawal of the multinational force from Beirut represents the collapse of American policy in the Lebanon without there being any sign so far that the lessons have been learned? President Reagan yesterday threatened even wider and more indiscriminate intervention from his naval and air forces offshore.
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if any profit is to be derived from the Lebanese tragedy, all concerned must recognise two lessons? The first is that there can be no internal settlement which does not reflect the fact that the Lebanon now has a majority of Moslems? The second is that there can be no external security for the Lebanon which does not abrogate the agreement with Israel which was imposed on the Lebanon by American pressure last year and which does not recognise the Syrian desire and interest in security through a friendly Lebanon on its frontier.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that an even greater danger threatens from a massive escalation of the war in the Gulf in the coming weeks, if not days, and will he seek western talks with the Soviet Government to ensure that the super-powers are not dragged into direct military confrontation with each other, against the will of both, by the action of third parties that they cannot control? Would he not agree that talks between the Soviet Government and Western governments might provide a basis on which any future peacekeeping operations in the middle east would be carried out by the United Nations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman's last point is a different question, but he can rest assured that we are well aware of the dangers that do or may arise in connection with developments in the Gulf.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given to what I have had to say and for the tribute that he has paid to the British ambassador and the multinational force. As I said in my statement, we have the civilian population prominently in mind. Those British residents without urgent reason to stay in Lebanon were advised to leave as long ago as September last year. In the last few days they have, of course, been advised to stay under cover and arrangements are in hand for those now wishing to leave. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Reliant is close offshore to help if necessary. There has been no request for the British contingent to leave, although we have kept in touch with President Gemayel and he has been kept informed.
As for the United States, we have always made it plain that the right of MNF participants to take action in the Lebanon is limited to that of self-defence.
It is certainly right to say that the prospect of internal settlement depends upon participation by all the communities in a fashion that can be acceptable, so as to make that settlement a reality. However, I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of recognising the role and interests of Syria in the region


and the importance also of ensuring that the 17 May agreement, while it made provision for withdrawal of Israeli forces and while it is necessary to make secure Israel's northern frontier, should not be allowed to become an obstacle to the necessary settlement.

Mr. David Steel: How many British citizens are there in Beirut at the present time? Is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view that the agreement between Lebanon and Israel should now be ended?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The view that we have made clear, and that I made clear during my recent visit to Damascus, is that the 17 May agreement, while it had had a legitimate objective at the outset, should not be allowed to become an obstacle to the settlement. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, some people say that it should be abrogated. Others adopt a slightly different approach. The important thing is that, while not preventing it from fulfilling its original objective, we do not allow it to stand in the way of some new, enlarged or extended agreement that would fulfil the objectives properly.
Our present best estimate of the size of the British community in Lebanon, based on consular records, is 1,800 United Kingdom nationals exempt from immigration control, 800 United Kingdom nationals subject to immigration control, and 180 citizens of Commonwealth countries for whom we are responsible. It is impossible to say how many of those may have left Lebanon already without notifying the embassy, because they were advised to leave some months ago. It is difficult to say how many of those remaining might wish to be evacuated.

Mr. Julian Amery: Although I agree that President Reagan's decision to withdraw the marines left us with no option but to withdraw our forces— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the withdrawal of the multinational force is a serious setback to Western influence throughout the middle east? Will he take the initiative in urgently consulting our partners in Europe and the United States of America to ensure that this collapse of our influence does not extend to south Asia and the Gulf, where the threat is increasing every day?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My announcement was about the redeployment of our troops in the way that I described; it parallels the announcement made by President Reagan about his troops. The failure to achieve the process of reconciliation, which was the object of our being there, is much to be regretted. It is important that we should not allow those events to lead to a further erosion of Western positions.

Mr. Speaker: Dr. David Owen.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He has changed his mind.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Enoch Powell.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why did it once again prove impossible for the Foreign Office to anticipate events which were so widely foreseen by others? For how long will the United Kingdom continue to be dragged at the cart-tail of the disastrous misconceptions of United States policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot share the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the United States' policies. That

country is and remains our closest and most important ally. That is why, during the past few days, as always, we have kept in the closest touch with America and with our other MNF partners. We were told of their decision in advance, and we told our partners of our decision. However, each country has considered the position of its contingent, as we have, in the light of its national interests.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Although I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that stability, sovereignty and independence—in his words—are the right aims for this most tragic and unhappy country, how now is this to be achieved in the context of what he described as the lack of prospect for the establishment of a government of reconciliation in the Lebanon? What policies will we now adopt? What initiatives will we take, either in conjunction with our allies or through the United Nations? If we are to achieve those desirable results, a form of international peace force must go into the Lebanon.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have been pressing for the placing of a United Nations force in the Lebanon for several months. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed the matter during that period more than once with the United Nations secretariat, and I have instructed our ambassador to the United Nations to get in touch there again today. However, the fact remains that the deployment of a United Nations force in the Lebanon would require the assent of a wide range of countries. It would also require, first, a request from the Government of the Lebanon.
I agree with my right hon. Friend about the need for continued action to try to secure a resolution of this most unhappy situation. However, the resolution of disputes in the Lebanon can be achieved only by the determined efforts of its people to bring about a process of reconciliation. Alongside that, it is important to press for the matters for which we have already been pressing—the withdrawal of all foreign forces as a result of agreement with all the countries that have an interest in the area, including Israel and Syria.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government of the Lebanon whom the House had earlier accepted, no longer exist and that the entire situation has changed? Will he accept also that if there is to be a second peacekeeping force, it should be encouraged to show the same neutrality which was shown by British troops but not reflected by other members of the multinational force?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State emphasised on Monday and as the Government have emphasised throughout, it is important for any force undertaking that sort of role to take the utmost care not to take sides. As the hon. Gentleman has said, that is the position that we have adopted throughout. President Gemayel remains the legitimate President of the Lebanon. The Government have resigned, although they remain as a caretaker Administration. We can deal with the institutions of the Lebanon only as they are, and it is for them, within the framework of their own constitution, to take the next steps.

Sir Frederic Bennett: While unreservedly acclaiming the role that the British forces have played in the Lebanon, to which tribute has been paid everywhere,


and while equally welcoming the decision of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the British force at this phase, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to note that any future peacekeeping force which at some stage will have to be formed, will be unlikely to be formed through the United Nations because of the Soviet Union's veto, will have in future to be composed of contingents from countries that cannot be said to have direct or indirect affinities with either of the contestants? Will he note also that Britain and western Europe have a special role to play in the preparation of any new such force?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It is right to ensure that any further force that might become involved in any exercise of that sort in the Lebanon should be as manifestly neutral as possible. That is one of the reasons why we have pressed as hard as we have for the involvement of a United Nations force, if possible. I have already identified the obstacles to that.

Mr. Ken Weetch: Does the Secretary of State agree that Britain's involvement in the Lebanon on the coat-tails of the Americans has proved to be a pretty sorry affair? Will he emphasise and underline to his American counterpart that the blind and indiscriminate American shelling of the Druze and Syrian positions can only further embitter and alienate those with whom ultimately we shall have to make a settlement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, anything done in the Lebanon has to be judged by the extent to which it contributes to the process of reconciliation. That is the test that should be applied by everyone concerned and that is the Government's view. The United States Government are well aware of our views. I invite the hon. Gentleman to think again about his observation of the sorry role played by British forces in this incident. The fact remains—this has been acknowledged on all sides in the Lebanon and elsewhere—that the British contingent has throughout played a role of complete impartiality. For that reason, it has been able to contribute during the time that it has been there to the chances of stability in the Beirut area. Everyone has been willing to pay tribute to it for the part that it has played.

Mr. Dennis Walters: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that our commitment to the re-establishment of Lebanon's sovereignty presupposes the demand for the withdrawal of all foreign troops, including the armed forces of Israel, whose unprovoked aggression of the Lebanon is largely responsible for the carnage that is taking place? Is this not the opportunity for a major diplomatic offensive aimed at attempting to bring about a comprehensive settlement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend says, it is right that an ultimate settlement within the Lebanon on the basis of an independent sovereign state depends on the withdrawal of all foreign forces, including those of Israel and Syria. I do not think that it would be helpful at this stage to cast blame for the present state of affairs further than that. It is clear that if all these desirable things are to come about, every effort must be made to secure concerted progress towards them. That was one of the objectives which played a prominent part in the talks that I had in the

middle east earlier this year. Now that these events are taking place, I agree with my hon. Friend that the case for further urgent diplomatic action is strong, and we will be doing everything we can to that end.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Given the fact that all sides agree that it was significant that the British presence in the multinational force was involved neither militarily nor politically and achieved limited success, will the Secretary of State use the influence that we now have in the bargaining with America on the replacement of the multinational force to alter dramatically the disastrous policies on Lebanon that the Reagan Government are pursuing?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is the same point. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view of the policies of the American Government. I accept that we have a part to play in seeking to persuade all those involved to take the necessary steps to secure an effective settlement and reconciliation. In that process, it is necessary for all the countries involved, including the United States, to approach the matter with reasonably open minds and not allow previous activities, such as the 17 May agreement, to become an obstacle rather than a help to the process of settlement.

Mr. Francis Pym: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement has been welcomed throughout the House and that his tributes to our forces are endorsed by everyone. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the present position in the Lebanon is extremely grave, that in recent weeks it has deteriorated and that, in view of the failure to secure the withdrawal of all foreign forces and the deterioration of conditions in Lebanon, it is vital that a major diplomatic effort is put in train to prevent any more serious events taking place? Can he give a statement about the action he is taking, the meetings he is attending or the diplomatic action that will take place to prevent the position from becoming worse than it is already?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend rightly endorses what I have said about the extreme gravity and serious deterioration of conditions in the Lebanon. For that reason, at the end of my statement, I emphasised the need for urgent action to secure a settlement in that country. That action depends, of course, not only on what is said and done by those on the ground but on what is done by the MNF contributor countries and the others involved. The urgency of the need for action is one of the reasons why I was canvassing possible ways forward during my recent visit to Syria. I agree that there is now an urgent need for close co-operation and consultation between the MNF contributors with a view to launching the type of initiative my right hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister recollect that, shortly after the visit of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to Beirut, they were party to removing a distinguished paratroop officer, Colonel David Roberts, from command of the unit for presenting them with unpalatable facts that warned of today's events? Can we be sure that Colonel Roberts' career is safeguarded?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a false conception of the reality of this matter. There is no question of Colonel Roberts having been removed in that way or for that reason.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Although I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the successful evacuation so far of our troops and applaud the courage, efficiency and impartiality of our forces in the Lebanon, does he agree that, if there is to be any future peace force, it would do more harm than good if it were not clearly divorced from any regional alliance in the area and if it clearly supported one particular faction in the Lebanon?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I fully accept the force of his main observation. That is why we have throughout emphasised the importance of our force in the Lebanon playing an independent role without leaning towards one side or another.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State accept that the present conditions in the Lebanon, notwithstanding the bravery and deportment of our troops, confirmed emphatically the views expressed by many of us that we should not have been there in the first place? Does he accept that a best friend, in terms of the allies of Britain and the United States, is one that tells the United States frankly that the posture it is adopting in the middle east is wrong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question does not reflect the way that I see the matter. The presence of our contingent during that period has helped to provide an opportunity for political reconciliation. Sadly, that opportunity has not been taken. I entirely agree that it is important to be ready and willing, as we are, to form our own independent view of what is needed in the middle east and to express it without fear to the United States. We never hesitate to do that.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Could I add my tribute to the troops, and ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether they are getting off properly with all then-kit, vehicles, ammunition and so on? What are they now supposed to do on the auxiliary naval vessel? Are they going to steam up and down opposite Lebanon? Is that a proper role for a cavalry regiment? Is he aware that the 16th/5th Queen's Lancers, of which regiment I had the honour to be a member, has been asked to play many roles during the past centuries but not up to now that of the horse marines? Is he further aware that although the conduct of our policies in the Lebanon may have differed from that of the United States Government, nevertheless we do not doubt their good faith and good will in this matter, and that the consultations that we have had with them have plainly borne good fruit?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should not begin to exchange views with my hon. Friend about the proper role of a seaborne, horse-borne regiment. I said in my statement that the troops will remain on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Reliant until the position becomes clearer. He will recall that there may be some part for them to play in connection with the protection of British subjects if it becomes necessary for them to be evacuated.
The object of the exercise is to ensure that the troops and their equipment are fully withdrawn. As I have said

already, the major part of the redeployment of the troops and their equipment has been successfully completed. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says about the way in which we should judge our relationship with our American allies.

Mr. David Winnick: Have not the latest developments in that tragically divided country, with a President who was discredited almost from the beginning of his term of office, shown the folly of British troops being involved?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's view. The fact is that in that tragically troubled country, about which there seems to be agreement on both sides of the House, the presence of the British contingent has helped to prolong a period of reasonable stability and provide an opportunity for reconciliation. The tragedy is that reconciliation has not yet been possible.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us who were worried in the first place about British troops being sent to Lebanon, are most relieved and gratified that they have all been brought out safely and, apparently, so efficiently? Without in any way sharing the horrible anti-American sentiments of certain Opposition right hon. and hon. Members, will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the American Government to be less hostile to Syria and less accommodating to the Israelis so that perhaps those two countries can reach some agreement now that they are alone?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the original decision. I know that he understands that all of us who have been anxious about the presence of our troops there have regarded their safety as one of the most important considerations. Of course it is necessary for any approach to the future settlement of Lebanon to be even-handed in its appraisal of the roles played by and interests involved of Syria and Israel.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Foreign Secretary will know that we are most pleased to hear the news today that our troops have been withdrawn. Can he assure us that they will not be sent back except to safeguard the lives of the British citizens in Lebanon? If there is to be a further peacekeeping force in the area can he assure us that it consists of United Nations forces and those who up to now have had no role in the Middle East?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Whether circumstances are likely to arise where the redeployment onshore of our troops is right or possible cannot be seen at present. I see no immediate prospect of that, and I endorse the hon. Member's suggestion that, if at all possible, a United Nations force would be more appropriate in that area. However, he must recognise the difficulties in achieving that.

Mr. David Crouch: While we are properly applauding this afternoon the work done in the Lebanon by the contingent of nearly 100 men as soldiers, we should not neglect the fact that they have also been representatives of British policy of impartiality and, in a way, our diplomats in that area, and highly respected as such? Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that we do not have a casual interest in the middle east and the Lebanon, notwithstanding the chaos that has


descended on that tragic country, and will he continue to ensure that our presence in the middle east is maintained as well as our troops themselves have demonstrated it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said about the legitimate interest that Britain has in the stability of the middle east, including, of course, the Lebanon. It is important that we should continue to play an independent role and make our voice heard in that region. I also endorse what my hon. Friend said about the part played by our troops. I cannot emphasise too strongly that they have not merely served well and effectively as soldiers but that they have earned a very high reputation for themselves and for this country.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Now that we have seen a further example of the 24-hour volte-face by the Foreign Secretary, what assurances can he give about the safety of the British civilians who are still in Beirut? Can he assure us that there will be no further attacks on British people in that part of the world? Will he ensure that we are no longer in tow to President Reagan, as a result of which we have these 24-hour statements, time in, time out?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of a 24-hour volte-face. The whole House knows, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the position of our contingent there has been the subject of continuous consideration from month to month, week to week and day to day, in light of the factors properly urged upon the Government by all sides of the House. We have taken the decision that we have in the light of the events that have taken place in the past few days. I have no doubt that that is right, and that it has been rightly welcomed. I am afraid that it is not possible, of course, to guarantee the safety of British residents in Beirut from the risk of attack. It is for that reason that we advised them, as long ago as last September, about the wisdom of their leaving the city if they had no reason to remain. That is why we have been making arrangements to provide for those who now wish to leave. Finally, I cannot reject too strongly the hon. Gentleman's attempt, once again, to indulge in cheap anti-Americanism.

Viscount Cranborne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the events of the last few days constitute a grave blow to the prestige and influence of the West in the middle east, particularly in the Gulf? Does he have any plans to try to retrieve the position?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Plainly, no one can greet the outcome of the participation of our force in the multinational force in Lebanon without some regret, for reasons that are obvious to the House. However, one should not allow that to diminish our own assessment of the role that we can and should play, not just there but more widely in the middle east.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that one of the most incredible parts of this question and answer session has been the fact that the leader of the SDP, who so often graced the television studios and appeared—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I am coming to it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must ask a question of the Foreign Secretary, and not refer to other people.

Mr. Skinner: Yes. — who was on all the programmes about the Lebanon situation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing just what I told him not to do. Will he please ask a question?

Mr. Skinner: Somehow or other he did not manage to get into this debate. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover is repeating what I told him I could not allow him to say. Will he ask a question of the Foreign Secretary that is directly concerned with this matter?

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Will he ask a question?

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps the Foreign Secretary can tell us how come that a master of detail, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman was called by the Prime Minister, could not find this great big banana skin looming before him, when almost everyone on the Opposition Benches, except the Liberals and the SDP, have been telling him for months to get out of the Lebanon?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has once again demonstrated his gift for reducing a serious issue, in which the rest of us are interested, to the level of complete triviality.

Mr. Patrick Nichoils: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, even though Conservative Members welcome the fact that the troops are now to be withdrawn, we very much appreciate the judgment he showed in not responding to earlier calls—probably prompted by panic and mischief—to withdraw the troops earlier? Does he agree that the fact that we pulled out the troops at the very last moment will ensure that whatever influence we can bring to bear in the future has the right effect?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In fact, we applied our judgment from the beginning to the end before we reached this decision, and we shall continue to bring our influence to bear in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the presence of American troops in ships off the Lebanon could be the basis for a future American invasion of that country? Would it not be far better if the British troops were withdrawn altogether from that region, and that he put whatever pressure he can on the United States to withdraw its troops in exactly the same way, and thus prevent another foreign invasion of the Lebanon? Does not he think that the people of the Lebanon should be allowed to develop their own future in their own way, without foreign interference?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Americans and ourselves have throughout shared the same objectives in Lebanon, and continue to do so. If Lebanon is to enjoy the prospect of peace and stability that we all wish for her, all foreign troops, including those of Israel and Syria, will have to be withdrawn.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that most hon.


Members are concerned about what will happen to the people of the Lebanon in a situation that is deteriorating into civil war and internecine strife, with all the benefits to the malefactors? Will he spearhead what would seem to be a particularly appropriate initiative by the European countries and their Foreign Ministers for a common policy to do their best to prevent this tragedy from getting worse?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We all totally share my hon. and learned Friend's concern about the future of the people of Lebanon. It is our concern for their prospects of peace and reconciliation that led us to play our part there. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind the fact that, in the last resort, only the people in that country can find their own salvation. Certainly, the United Kingdom for many months now has sought to sustain diplomatic initiatives to secure movement by all the parties concerned to advance the prospects of peace. We shall continue to do so with our European partners as far as necessary.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Now that President Reagan's role as a world policeman or world sheriff has been seen to fail again, and the risk of Lebanon being further torn limb from limb is increasing, will the Foreign Secretary tell us, on behalf of the Government, at what point the Government will withdraw support from an unrepresentative, reactionary regime, headed by President Gemayel? Will he also tell us how it is, despite the small breathing space of support for that regime given by the multinational force, there has been not one iota of difference in the social and economic problems that afflict the people of that country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have never given support without qualification to any regime or system in the Lebanon. In fact, we have proceeded on the basis, which still remains the case, that President Gemayel remains the legitimate president of that country. We shall continue to do what we can to promote the process of reconciliation there.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising if they will put their questions briefly. It is an important matter. I shall then call the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: While we are all glad that our troops are safe, does my right hon. Friend not find it rather strange that the House should have been ringing with words of welcome and congratulation over a major setback for the West, and over the prospect of a bloodbath in Beirut? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has much in mind the wider implications — the loss of credibility of western assurances now in other areas of the middle east, and notably in Oman? Will he also take into account the fact that the expressions of anti-Americanism that have been heard in the House could make our closest ally recoil from commitments in the world which we badly require?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is for the reasons given by my hon. Friend that I have already deplored the anti-American sentiments that have crept so often into these exchanges. It is because of our anxiety to avoid the prospect of bloodshed and slaughter, which of course has come much closer, that we have indeed been playing our full part until now in the multinational force.

Mr. Robert Adley: Some minutes ago my right hon. and learned Friend, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), said that we should not cast blame. We all agree that there is no point in doing that. Is it not important to learn the lesson from this affair—that, for the major powers, partisan support for one side or another in the middle east will inevitably result in disaster? Must we not face the fact that, so long as the Americans regard the middle east as their bailiwick, it is absolutely ridiculous to expect the Soviet Union to stand by demurely and pay no regard to that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of the Americans' view of their role in the middle east, but of course it is right that no party should be adopting an attitude in the middle east that is partisan to one side or the other. If one is to try to advance the chances of peace, it is most important to do so, as I have said already, in an even-handed fashion, as we have always sought to do.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not the fundamental point during the months that our troops were in the Lebanon the fact that they were accepted by the people on both sides? Should we not draw the lesson that it is right for us to be willing to risk our people to help avoid further bloodshed when it is possible to reduce the level of fighting?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It was after judging those factors that we made our original commitment to participate in the multinational force, and certainly the respect accorded to our troops there underlines the reason why it is right for us to maintain an important interest in the future of the area.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is it not the case that the withdrawal might not now be taking place if, instead of one party in the multinational force trying to provide in the Lebanon. a government which was suitable to the interests of Israel, it had in fact tried to provide in the Lebanon a government suitable for the interests of Lebanon? Has this lesson been learnt? Until it is, no progress can be made.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's analysis of the history, it certainly is important that the Government of the Lebanon, if it is to survive effectively in the future, must be a government that is representative of all the people, and all the factions in that country.

Mr. Healey: First, I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said in endorsing what I said about the preconditions for internal stability and external security of the Lebanon. Will he inform the United States Administration, if possible together with our European allies, that he will not in future support American policies on the Lebanon which do not accept those preconditions?
Secondly, since the Foreign Secretary shares the widespread concern that the Gulf war may shortly enter a far more dangerous phase, and since the Prime Minister herself on her recent journey to Budapest — or was it Damascus?—accepted the need for Soviet co-operation in a search for peace, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman initiate immediate discussions with the Soviet Government on some of the contingencies which might arise as a result of the escalation of the Gulf war?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our views on the future arrangements that are necessary for stability in the Lebanon, and more widely, are well known to the United States, and will continue to be so.
As to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Soviet Union, I am not prepared now to embark on discussion of its role in relation to the Gulf, although I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's legitimate concern about that region. But I also endorse the point that he makes, that it is entirely right for us to be prepared to discuss regional questions with the Soviet Union, and it is for that reason that I did indeed raise this very region in my meeting with Mr. Gromyko.

Select Committees (Attendance of Members)

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to seek your advice on a matter arising from the meeting of the Select Committee on Employment this morning in Room 15, when two Secretaries of State gave evidence. The general question is: what are the rights of entry of Members of Parliament who are not members of the Select Committee? However, it cannot be left at that point, because of the particular circumstances of the meeting this morning.
There was a large attendance of press, officials, civil servants and so on. It was not clear — other hon. Gentlemen were with me, and officials did their best—what the rights of entry of Members of Parliament were. I was not prepared to enter into a scrummage to get into a Committee where I felt that Members of Parliament had the right to be in attendance. The room was overcrowded, and it was not conducive to the proper conduct of public business. In the light of that, and the general answer, what advice can you give the House, Mr. Speaker, for the days and weeks ahead where, because of an interest in the matter of GCHQ, Members of Parliament are likely to want to enter the Committee Room to listen in the same way that the world can listen?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that an attempt appears to have been made to stop a trade union official from putting his case before the Select Committee, and taking into account that the Select Committee only a couple of years ago decided that it wanted to hear the views of an Arthur Scargill, the NUM President, and Arthur Scargill for some reason or other at that time was not ready to appear before the Select Committee—[Laughter.] he did eventually—is it not a fact that on that occasion the Select Committee had the power to ensure that due notice was served on Arthur Scargill, 222, Euston Road, by Miss Jean Frampton? That was done with the widest possible publicity. I cannot understand why the same action cannot be taken in this case to ensure that a trade union leader be brought before the Select Committee.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) does the House a service by raising this matter. Undoubtedly there was some embarrassment today. It is not the first occasion that this has occurred. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, there is a motion on the Order Paper today for the re-establishment of the Liaison Committee. Would it not be a proper subject for that Committee, if the House in its wisdom decides to re-establish it, to consider the matter in general, and then to report to the House on what might be done?

Mr. David Winnick: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can pre-empt any further points of order on this matter because there is heavy


business before the House. I am able to rule. I thank the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for having raised the matter.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am ruling.
I thank the right hon. Member for having raised the matter, because it is an important one. I should like to make the position clear to the House. Members of the House who are not members of a Committee have the right to attend a meeting of a Committee. By convention, they withdraw during deliberations of the Committee, if requested to do so by the Committee. Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms for a report on what happened this morning.
To deal with the point of order of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I must say that it is not for me to rule on what goes on in any Select Committee. The problems that arise in a Select Committee are for that Committee to deal with. If the Committee wishes to bring a problem before the House, it can do so by making a report. At that point the House can, if necessary, take action, and I can be asked for a procedural ruling on it.

Mr. Winnick: We are grateful for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. When these departmental Committees were set up in the latter part of 1979, it was stated by the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), that they would have powers to send for persons and papers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has given one illustration. What is alarming is that if a Government say, in effect, that certain witnesses must not appear, it undermines the authority of the Select Committee and of Parliament. That is why I believe that a principle is involved, as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) suggested. The whole authority of Select Committees is undermined if then-powers are so limited that the Administration can decide who shall and shall not appear before them.
I accept that for some time it has not been possible to force Ministers to appear. Are we really going to accept that Ministers can lay down that certain witnesses shall not appear? That would make a total mockery of the Select Committee system.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is helpful to recall that circumstances are not arising for the first time. When the Select Committee on Expenditure, through its Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, investigated the Chrysler rescue operation, the then Prime Minister told the Committee that it was for the Government to decide which witnesses would appear and that the Committee had no right to hear the right hon. Mr. Lever, not on the ground that he was a Member of this House, but because it was for the Government to decide who would give evidence on behalf of a Department.
On a later occasion, when a Select Committee was looking into surveying the English channel and investigating means of preventing collisions at sea, it wished to ask civil servants whether funding was provided by the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade or the Department of the Environment. The then Labour Government declined to allow civil servants to answer that question and sent Lord Peart instead. It is as well for the

House to be aware of the precedents, because otherwise it might believe that there was some novelty in the events complained of today.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the House is addressing itself to a matter of more recent date than that referred to by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I believe that a motion was approved on 25 June 1979 in the following terms:
Select Committees appointed under this Order shall have power—(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House
and so on. That covers the essential question.
We are faced with a serious development which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House might say is implicit in the arrangements for, and difficulties of, Select Committees. A Select Committee has asked to see particular people to carry out its proper task of investigating the whole question of GCHQ, Cheltenham, in relation to the interests of the Select Committee on Employment and the Government who have instructed named people not to attend.
The matter was brought to the attention of the Liason Committee in the 1982–83 Session and it reported on this very question. Words of reassurance given by the then Leader of the House in 1981 were quoted:
I am entirely prepared to give a formal undertaking that where there is evidence of widespread general concern in the House regarding an alleged ministerial refusal to disclose information to a select committee, I shall seek to provide time to enable the House to express its view."—[Official Report, 16 January 1981, Vol. 996 c. 1312.]
The reference to
alleged ministerial refusal to disclose information
was certainly meant to include the presence of a Minister and of civil servants acting on his instructions.
I should like the present Leader of the House to assure us that the undertaking given in such formal terms will be honoured by the present Government if the Chairman or members of the Select Committee or Members of the House believe that there is widespread general concern about the need to debate the matter further. I believe that there is such a growing widespread concern.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be of assistance if I made my comments now. In what I hope is helpful brevity, my answer to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) must be "yes." From the inception of the departmental Select Committees it has been understood that certain matters such as security could be acutely sensitive. That was touched upon in the Liaison Committee report for the 1982–83 Session and in the letter that I subsequently addressed to the chairman of the Liaison Committee. I shall, of course, view with sympathy the real point of substance raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call further hon. Members, but we have a heavy day ahead of us.

Mr. Baldry: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall decide who is called.

Mr. John Gorst: In connection with the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I put the record straight in at least one important respect? Although the Select Committee desired in principle to invite particular people to visit it, it had not resolved to do so. Preliminary inquiries had been made and a rejection received.
The rejection was on the surely spurious ground that the man concerned worked in a position involving security. The questions which the Committee wished to put to him related solely to his activities as a trade unionist. Indeed, in specific terms, the Committee wished to know why he did not want to join a staff association and so surrender arbitrarily his trade union membership. That can have no connection wih what the Leader of the House just said about security matters. For the Leader of the House to use that as a justification for what the Government have done is only a red herring.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one is more conscious than I of the need to maintain security, but the subject that arose this morning was whether the trade unions locally or nationally had ever had a no-strike agreement put to them. Surely no security is involved in bringing both the men concerned before the Select Committee and asking, "Were you approached and did you say no or otherwise?" There is no question of security in that.

Mr. Baldry: May I first apologise, Mr. Speaker, for any inadvertent discourtesy to the Chair? It was not intended.
The House is labouring under a considerable misunderstanding. At no time has the Select Committee collectively addressed itself to whether the witnesses should be called. The Chairman of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) took it upon themselves to institute certain inquiries without having the courtesy to consult any of their colleagues. In those circumstances it might be better if the Select Committee on Employment were allowed to continue its deliberations instead of the matter being debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Greville Janner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is wrong. He might not have been consulted through some inadvertence, but most members of the Committee were consulted. As the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said, the Committee has not asked for these people to attend, but it was made plain by the Government that if it did ask, they would not be premitted to attend. Most of us find that highly objectionable.
May I ask for your guidance on another matter, Mr. Speaker? If it is held, contrary to our submissions, that a security matter is involved—we do not believe that it is — the Committee could sit in camera. The persons concerned could refuse to answer a particlar question if it involved security. There can, therefore, be no reason for the Government's disgraceful refusal to agree, even in advance of being asked.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take one more point of order on this issue.

Mr. Neale: May I, Mr. Speaker, without unnecessarily delaying matters, further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)? I, as a member of the Committee, was not informed at any stage about this matter. I should like to correct one point. I believe that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee, is blameless. I and four of my colleagues on the Committee were not consulted about the invitation. Had I been consulted, I would not have joined in the invitation.

Mr. Speaker: These are very important matters. I think I can help the House. The House will accept that it is most important that it preserves the right of a Select Committee to control its own proceedings. The Select Committee may or may not be satisfied with what has happened today. We must wait until the Select Committee reports. I dealt with that problem when I was ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The House has heard what the Leader of the House said about it.

Early-day Motions

Mr. Anthony Nelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a matter about which I gave notice to your Office this morning, namely, the inclusion in the Order Paper today of a note stating that a large number of further added names to some 30 early-day motions and eight amendments have not been published, although I believe it is hoped to print them tomorrow.
You, Mr. Speaker, above all, will be well aware that the tabling and endorsing of early-day motions are rights cherished by Back Benchers. Although some may feel that the force of early-day motions has been slightly diluted recently by their number and the content of some of them, nevertheless the House would appreciate your advice about how this situation arose and an assurance about how we can ensure that further added names are printed properly in future.

Mr. Speaker: I too observed the Order Paper this morning, and I have looked into the matter. The House will have noticed that last night an unusually large number of early-day motions were put down; there were 11 in all, and nine of them were put down during the Division at 10 o'clock. Several of these attracted a large number of signatures. As a result, it was not possible to print all the added names to the earlier motions but, as the hon. Gentleman said, these will be published tomorrow.
It would be a great help to the Table Office if hon. Members could hand in such motions as early in the day as possible so that they can reach the printer in good time. Of course, additional names to new motions can be put into the Table Office at any time up to the rising of the House. By this means, I hope that what happened last night will be avoided in future.

Parliamentary Expressions

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week in the House I referred from a sedentary position to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as a supercilious git. No doubt in an effort to protect me, you cocked a Nelsonian deaf ear and Hansard did not print the remark, but you were undone by the squealers from The Guardian who, if they are not shopping people who are leaking secrets from the Foreign Office, are shopping then-most loyal readers.
In the debates that have ensued throughout the week about that expression, it has been automatically assumed that it was unparliamentary. I have looked up "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" which defines "git" as "a worthless person". More important I have looked up Eric Partridge's "Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Colloquialisms and Catch-phrases, Solecisms and Catachreses, Nicknames, Vulgarisms and Americanisms as have been naturalised". That defines "git" as "a useless fellow". In my respectful submission, if I had said, "You supercilious useless fellow," or, "You supercilious useless person," that would not have been deemed to be an unparliamentary expression.
There is a more important point, which is why I have raised the issue. Today, Mr. Speaker, you rightly ruled that a Minister was out of order in using the noun "hypocrisy". He levelled the charge of hyprocisy against my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). It seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable charge, and I am sure my hon. Friend could have answered it. The dictionary of slang also says about git that it is essentially a cockney phrase. I think, seriously, that we should be allowed to use plain words and plain English and, in particular, cockney phrases in the House. If nouns like "hyprocisy" are rightly ruled out of order according to Erskine May, it will denigrate and take away from hon. Members' speeches.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was not here when I referred to this matter on Monday. I genuinely did not hear the expression and I suspect that many hon. Members did not hear it either. Normally in Hansard one sees in brackets the word "interruption" but that did not occur. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening me on what the word means. I did not know what it meant.
As I have said before, and as I am sure the House will agree, the House is in favour of robust debate, but we do not want to level accusations against one another, and certainly we do not want to impute dishonour to one another. I do not think that the word "git" is one that we should hear too often in the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 24 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Tony Banks
Mr. Christopher Chope
Mr. Edward du Cann

European Assembly Elections (Proportional Representation)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an electoral system for the European Assembly based on proportional representation; and for connected purposes.
As a preface to my remarks, may I say that the chronological sequence of events leading to today's Bill repays careful study. The treaty of Rome was ratified by the House in October 1972. Its provisions applied to this country from 1 January 1973. The relevant part of the treaty dealing with the system of elections is article 138, paragraph 3, which says:
The assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
Therefore, it was clearly envisaged in the treaty of Rome that a common system of elections would ultimately be adopted. It is a matter of some regret that more than 10 years later we find that that important provision is yet to be fulfilled. It remains unfulfilled because of the obstinate refusal of the Government to implement a system of elections which embraces an element of proportionality.
The House will know that the first direct elections to the European Assembly took place on 7 June 1979. In 1979, except for Great Britain, all countries, including Northern Ireland, used some form of proportional representation. It is worth noting that the Government of the day were willing to allow a system of election in Northern Ireland based on the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies—thereby tacitly recognising the case for proportional representation when it is necessary to protect religious minorities—but they are not prepared to allow the provisions to apply to political parties in a minority position in other parts of the United Kingdom.
In March 1982 the European Assembly debated the system of elections to be used in 1984. It wisely sought to fulfil the spirit of the treaty of Rome by recommending not a common system but a common electoral framework within which each country may choose one of several related methods of election. The proposed electoral framework provides for proportional representation in multi-member constituencies of 3 to 15 members. The system of first-past-the-post in single member constituencies was ruled out; so were the various additional member systems. It is also worth noting in passing that the principal opposition to that proposal at that time came from the British delegation to the European Assembly.
The last time the House considered the reform of the European electoral system was during the seminal days of the Lib-Lab pact, on 13 December 1977. I remind the House that on that occasion 224 hon. Members voted for a system of proportional representation. The Division Lists for that debate repay careful study. Contained in the same Lobby in favour of a PR system were such unlikely bedfellows as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the former right hon. Member for Huyton, now Lord Wilson, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the right hon.

Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).
Many opinions were ventured during that debate. Some hon. Members thought that the shock of a new European election coupled to a novel system of polling would be too much for our electorate to cope with at one go. The present Minister of State, Home Office—the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) — took that view and voted against the proportional representation option because he favoured a common system for all the EEC countries and did not want to pre-empt a joint decision.
During the debate on the European Assembly Elections Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I came quickly to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to depart from the existing system for the first round." —
[Official Report, 13 December 1977; Vol. 941, c. 318.] In the rest of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman implied that he foresaw that a proportional system of representation would be in place before June 1984. That argument may have been tenable then, but it is no longer tenable now.
When one looks at the results of the first direct election in 1979, the most cursory inspection shows an indefensible discrepancy between the distribution of the votes cast and the distribution of the seats won. The Conservatives won half the votes and three-quarters of the seats. The Labour party won a third of the votes and a fifth of the seats. The Liberals took an eighth of the votes and were left totally without representation.
It is, I believe, true to say that there was widespread concern at that imbalance in the aftermath of the last European election—so much so that The Sun newspaper—not a noted organ of Liberal propaganda—said in an editorial on Tuesday 12 June 1979:
But NEITHER major party can feel any satisfaction at the shocking turn-out — nor at the sheer injustice done to the Liberal party … we MUST come into line with the rest of the Common Market and accept PR BEFORE it is forced upon us.
Since that election, an increasing number of people from different walks of life—from all parties and from none—have joined the cause of electoral reform. They have included such diverse personalities as Mr. Arthur Scargill, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Gavin Laird and Mr. Frank Chappie and a group of leading industrialists, loosely described as "mainly enlightened Conservatives" chaired by Sir Graham Wilkins, the chairman of the Beecham group, and Lord Caldecote, chairman of Finance for Industry. Even the Archbishop of York has joined the cause.
Apart from individual support, which has increased since 1979, the latest Gallup opinion poll conducted in June 1983 jointly for the Daily Telegraph and the Channel 4 programme "A Week in Politics" found a clear majority of voters favouring a change to some form of proportional representation—and that on a question relating directly to Westminster elections.
In parenthesis, I would say that those who have objections to PR because it leads to a sharing of power within Government do not have that argument open to them in the context of the European Assembly, whose function is exclusively deliberative, not executive.
That brings me to the system of PR recommended in the Bill. My Bill is drafted in such a way as to encourage the maximum possible number of hon. Members to vote


in favour of the principle of a fairer system. That can be done in a series of ways, and the choice of a system can be left to a later stage in the Bill's progress.
The last Bill introduced by the previous Labour Government was based on a regional list system, as is the present recommendation from the European Assembly. The Government have continued the single transferable vote system in multi-member constituencies from the June poll in Northern Ireland. Any of these systems would give a much fairer and more acurate result than the system of first-past-the-post.
It is an interesting coincidence that the appropriate orders giving effect to the procedures to be used in the forthcoming European election in June were introduced only the week before last, and the appropriate order for the STV system in Northern Ireland was confirmed by the House last Thursday, only a few days after notice of my Bill appeared on the Order Paper.
I should report that the Bill has sponsors from all quarters of the House, including both major and minority parties. The charge that the Government must answer today is that they have not taken timeous steps to introduce a system of elections to the European Assembly to bring us into line with the spirit of the treaty of Rome and our Common Market partners. It is my submission that the Government are guilty of deliberate and self-interested procrastination. Further delays can no longer be defended.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the forthcoming European election will now be held under the first-past-the-post system. The introduction of this Bill serves notice that those of us who have promulgated the cause of PR will be using the platform afforded by the coming election to introduce the necessary changes to ensure that the next election after this is conducted, in concert with the rest of Europe, using some system of PR.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the hon. Member have leave to bring in his Bill.
As many as are of that opinion say Aye.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: Of the contrary opinion, No.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it—the Ayes have it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mr. Austin

Mitchell, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Charles Morrison and Mr. A. J. Beith.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood accordingly presented a Bill to establish an electoral system for the European Assembly based on proportional representation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that I should seek to help the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order must be addressed to me and not to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am anxious about the rights of the hon. Member for Bolsover. Is it in order for the Labour Chief Whip to seek to persuade and put pressure on the hon. Member for Bolsover who was preparing to oppose the Bill? We can speculate on why the Labour Chief Whip would want to do that, but I seek your guidance on how you might protect the hon. Member for Bolsover from that sort of unfair pressure.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman says anything—

Mr. Skinner: But the hon. Gentleman has named me.

Mr. Speaker: No, he does not do the naming.

Mr. Skinner: Not more than 20 minutes ago, when I referred to the leader of the SDP as being reticent and coy over the U-turn on Lebanon, I was pulled up in my tracks by you, Mr. Speaker. However, let me make it quite clear that I had never any intention of giving the SDP and the Liberals a chance to get a few votes from either side. I made it abundantly clear from the beginning that I was in the Chamber to make sure that at least one voice shouted No to the motion, to show that I would not surrender to proportional representation and/or the Common Market as, seemingly, this motley crew from the Liberals and SDP are always prepared to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can leave the matter there.

Rate Support Grant (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I beg to move,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report for 1984–85, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.
When we debated the rate support grant report last year I said that it must be seen in the broader context of the Government's firm resolve to reduce the burden of public expenditure, approximately one quarter of which is accounted for by local authorities. Since that time the Government's mandate to pursue the policy has been overwhelmingly endorsed and the objective remains as important as ever. Against that background, before I move on to the report itself, I want to tell the House exactly what has happened to Welsh local authority expenditure since 1979. I want to set the facts against the myth; the hard statistics against the wilder allegations of our critics.
Every year since 1979 Opposition Members have alleged that the level of Government support for local authority expenditure has been so inadequate as to lead to unacceptable and slashing reductions in local authority services; to horrendous reductions in local authority staff and to unnecessary and excessive rate rises, which the local authorities could not afford. I have no doubt that those allegations will be repeated again and again in Opposition Members' speeches, following my opening remarks.
Unfortunately, the Opposition face one insuperable difficulty when attempting to make out their case. Factual evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Let us consider expenditure. Between 1979–80 and the present financial year, in cost terms — that is putting figures on to a constant basis using the annual increase in prices in the economy as a whole—local authority total expenditure, current and capital combined, hardly changed at all when allowance is made for both the National Insurance surcharge savings and housing benefit payments. During that same period there has been a relentless growth in current spending which has outstripped the increase in the general price level by about 2 per cent. That meant that, had it not been for the receipts from the sale of council houses, capital expenditure would have had to fall by about 10 per cent., in cost terms, to compensate for the rise in current spending. The figures clearly demonstrate that any talk of a massive reduction in local authority expenditure is nonsensical and in the realms of fantasy: the fact is that expenditure has not been reduced. Current expenditure has actually increased.
The Opposition constantly refer to the draconian reductions in local authority manpower, mass redundancies and services unable to survive for the want of adequate staffing. Here again rhetoric is no substitute for hard evidence. The Opposition are wrong. Between September 1979 and September 1983 the number of full-time and part-time staff employed by local authorities in Wales fell by 3,708, or about 2·4 per cent. during a period when the whole of the productive sector of the economy, public and private, had made massive increases in efficiency and corresponding reductions in staff. Even if one takes full-time equivalents and not total manpower as the statistical measure, the reduction for general services has been only a little more than 4 per cent., or about 1 per cent. a year, on average. That is hardly earth-shattering given the

substantial scope for securing manpower savings through increased efficiency that the recent Audit Commission report reveals. That report confirms what every member of the public knows to be true, that efficiency can he enormously improved and that substantial manpower economies are long overdue.
Manpower costs account for 70 per cent. of expenditure, and those costs simply have to be contained and reduced if services are to be maintained and improved. It is a matter for very real concern that between September 1982 and September 1983, the most recent period for which figures are available, the number of full-time and part-time staff in Wales rose by nearly 2,300 or about 1,000 full-time equivalent staff. The salary, wages and overhead costs of that increase alone, setting aside the question of any grant withholding, amount to around £10 million, or about £10 per household in Wales.
The next allegation is about damage to services. I have no doubt that authorities have found adjustment difficult, and I suppose that it is inevitable that they have not always managed it as well as they might, but the picture so vividly painted of slashing cutbacks is a gross distortion of reality. Let us look at education, accounting as it does for over half local authority current expenditure. Between January 1979 and January 1983 pupil numbers fell by nearly 49,000, or about 9 per cent., and a further fall of about 2 per cent. is projected over the next 12 months. Teacher numbers, however, have fallen by only 6 per cent. and as a result the pupil-teacher ratio has improved from 18·2 to 17·7. In addition, the average size of registered ordinary classes in primary schools has continually fallen, while registered classes in secondary schools have remained broadly unchanged. When Labour left government in 1979–80, 19 per cent. of ordinary classes in primary schools had more than 30 children; today, under this Conservative Government, the proportion of such classes has fallen to 16 per cent.
Let us look also at social services. In 1979 there were 11,800 persons, in full-time equivalent terms, engaged directly by the social services department. By September 1983 the number employed had risen by 1,100, or 9 per cent. It is a grotesque distortion to present those figures as evidence of a rundown in the level of provision in that sector. Similarly, the law and order services have never been in better shape, and other services, for example recreation, have been substantially improved. In the face of those facts it really is impossible to take seriously the claim that services are being cut to the bone. The Opposition do not help their case, or credibility, by repeating such unsubstantiated claims.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Minister leave the bluster and look at the other side of the balance sheet, at increasing unemployment, the increasing number of elderly people in our community and increasing demands on the social services? Can he stay as self-satisfied as he is now when he looks at those factors?

Mr. Edwards: I was stating that the Opposition claim that there have been slashing reductions in services, when in fact there has been an increase in services and in the number of people dealing with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Any unbiased observer considering those figures against the background of economic difficulty and world recession would be bound to say that, far from local


authorities in Wales having been badly treated, they have been treated very fairly indeed. I readily acknowledge that local authority expenditure in Wales has kept far closer to the Government's expenditure plans than that of authorities across the border, and I commend Welsh authorities for that. I also acknowledge that many authorities in Wales have made considerable efforts to contain their expenditure. None the less, the fact remains that even the modest expenditure reductions that we have sought have not been achieved: clearly there is quite a way to go before local authority expenditure is at the level we judge the nation can afford.
I announced the main details of the settlement in the House last December. For the local authorities, the main concerns are the total of relevant expenditure accepted for grant, particularly current expenditure, aggregate Exchequer grant, block grant within it, and the expenditure guidance which I have set based on expenditure targets and grant holdback arrangements.
The total of relevant expenditure provision, at £1,440 million, is an increase of about £55 million, or roughly 4 per cent., from this year's level. Within this total, current expenditure provision at £1,253 million is £57 million, or about 4·8 per cent. more than current expenditure provision this year, after making allowance for the 1·5 per cent. reduction in authorities' national insurance surcharge from next April and certain housing benefit administration costs. I do not think that anyone could argue with conviction that these amounts are unreasonable, given the need for local authority expenditure to be constrained.
No doubt Opposition Members will say that any increase in provision less than the likely level of inflation next year—somewhere around 5 per cent.—must mean a cut in services. I do not accept that argument. There is absolutely no reason for local authority costs to rise by 5 per cent. Even if one sets aside the very substantial scope there is for increasing efficiency, low wage settlements in line with the 3 per cent. cash allowance in the public sector would enable local authority costs to increase by about 4 per cent. Even Opposition Members will recognise that there is a trade-off between the level of pay settlements and the number of staff who can be employed.

Dr. John Marek: That argument will not wash, because local authorities have suffered for a number of years from the Government saying that local authority costs would go up and that allowance would be made for, say, 5 per cent., and it has turned out that costs, and manpower costs in particular, have gone up by 9 or 10 per cent. On this occasion the Government are also suggesting that loan pool costs will be 10 per cent., which is unduly low. Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that that is not acceptable to local authorities, and will he make realistic assumptions for increases in costs next year?

Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman wants to look at what has happened in the last few years, I assure him that the interest charge assumption that we have made in each of the last three or four years has proved too high and that the actual interest rates payable by local authorities have been below the assumption made. Not only does the hon. Gentleman not have a good argument on that, but he must accept the central point that I am making, which is that there is a trade-off between the level of pay settlements and the number of staff who can be employed, as Mr. Len Murray pointed out at a conference over the weekend.
If Opposition Members are as concerned as they say they are about the number of staff "at the sharp end," they should be vigorous in their support of our emphasis on the need for low pay settlements in the local authority sector, value for money, and pruning administration. Aggregate Exchequer grant, at £996 million, is £21 million, or 2·2 per cent., more than this year's provision as set out in the 1983–84 main report, but is nearly £34 million, 3·5 per cent., above supplementary report provision, which, I am sure the House understands, is the figure which counts when it comes to authorities' rating decisions for next year. Block grant is marginally reduced from the amount in the current year, but this has been far outweighed by a substantial increase in specific grants, and it is the totality of grant provision which influences rates.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: rose—

Mr. Edwards: Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, which has been curtailed, and I shall be covering a great many points in my speech. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, after which we can perhaps get on.

Mr. Wigley: Is it not true that the increase in specific grants will go largely towards housing grants, over which we are in such a mess in Wales, and that that will not be available to sustain services, so that the sustenance of services will have to be undertaken on a lower level of grant?

Mr. Edwards: The housing programme — indeed, the urban programme and the urban development grant, which are other aspects of this matter—is part of the overall area where there is widespread acceptance that there should be priorities. Priorities have, of course, been accorded to some services via specific grants. Those priorities are widely accepted and, clearly, within a finite total of grants, priority given to certain services inevitably means reduced priority for others. There is nothing peculiar or unusual about that. It is exactly the problem that I face when looking at priorities within the Welsh Office expenditure programmes.
I come now to expenditure targets and grant holdback. I have again set individual authority expenditure targets, and if councils exceed them grant will be withheld as in the current year. I need hardly say that I hope that grant withholding will not be necessary; that all authorities will spend at target and thus benefit their ratepayers. No doubt some will say that targets are unnecessary; that the very fact that they are set and that grant is withheld, if they are exceeded, increases the burden on ratepayers. I disagree. In an ideal world there would be no need for expenditure targets at all; authorities in aggregate would spend at a level consistent with our expenditure plans. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case in the past and experience has shown that targets provide a necessary incentive for authorities. I remind the House that, despite all the claims about the inadequacy of the targets that I set for the current year, three of the eight counties and 29 of the 37 districts have budgeted to meet them and I understand that some which originally planned to spend above their target levels now think that they will meet them. These figures show that targets are achievable if the will is there.
It might be helpful if I cleared up some misunderstandings that seem to exist about targets. First—and this is


important—targets are not linked to the previous year's targets; the starting point for their determination is an authority's budgeted expenditure in the current year. Targets comprise, for all authorities, three separate components — current expenditure, loan charges and interest receipts. For the districts there is a further important component—the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account.
The loan charges and interest receipts components are designed to be neutral, and every authority has exactly the same share of expenditure in these elements as it has in the current year.
The current expenditure component is the most important, and for next year's targets every authority has a cash increase in its current expenditure component; for low spenders, a 5 per cent. increase on this year's current budget, after allowing for the national insurance reduction from next April. In reality, they will get about 6 per cent., if budget drift is about 1 to 2 per cent., as it has been in recent years. Even the highest spenders, on this basis, will get a 1·5 per cent. increase in their current expenditure component.
The districts' rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account component reflects the Government's decision on the increase in public sector rents for the coming year when calculating housing subsidies and is the one which seems to give rise to most misunderstandings.
Not unexpectedly, there have been complaints — which, no doubt, will be repeated later—that the targets are unachievable, that they are too volatile, that some set a cash reduction from this year's actual expenditure and so on. I do not consider these complaints justified. I have never disguised the fact that the targets, particularly for some authorities, are tough. But, as I have told the House, I am using exactly the same methodology for the coming year as that in the present year, and in this respect I am meeting the expressed wishes of the Welsh local authority associations, which pressed me to retain the present method.
As regards the alleged volatility of expenditure targets for district authorities, it is, of course, true that in some instances these have changed substantially from the present year, and in some cases require a cash reduction on this year's expenditure. However, in almost every case where a district authority faces a cash reduction in its target, this results from the change in the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. If district authorities decide not to increase their rents in line with the increase in the local contribution assumed by the Government, then of course authorities' actual rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account will be far higher than their target components. They are, of course, free to do so, but they know very well that there are significant financial consequences of such a decision— consequences which of course fall on the generality of ratepayers. I have no sympathy at all for authorities which have decided not to increase council rents at all or to hold them well below the level that most authorities charge and now complain about the consequences.
There has also been criticism from some authorities that the low spenders have to pay too high a price for the current expenditure increase afforded to the higher spenders. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. It is hard that authorities which have held their costs down

in the past should now have to subsidise high spenders, but whatever pressure we apply it is unrealistic to think that the high spenders can be hauled back overnight. I must set realistic targets, but I have made certain that their attainment will require a great deal more effort from the higher spenders than from the low.
As regards the grant holdback for authorities which exceed their expenditure targets next year, I have strengthened the amount of grant to be withheld for levels of expenditure more than 1 per cent. over target. Last year the maximum amount of grant withheld, as a proportion of the expenditure excess, was 75 per cent. for spending 6 per cent. above targets. In the coming year this has been increased to 90 per cent. for spending 5 per cent. or more above target. I make no apologies for that change. I have strengthened holdback for a simple reason—to provide a greater incentive for authorities to meet their targets. There is a positive side to this policy which benefits the majority of Welsh authorities, particularly the low spenders. If they meet their targets they will receive virtually the grant they claim. In other words, they have the significant benefit of grant certainty.
There are only two other points that I need to mention. The first is grant-related expenditure—GRE. Inevitably there will be complaints that the GREs are unsatisfactory in certain cases and do not reflect the circumstances of an authority. Such complaints arise from both rural and urban authorities, which often claim that a GRE is unsatisfactory for totally opposite reasons. That tends to reinforce my view that GREs are broadly right. However, the important point here is that, to date, I have been able to accept in their entirety the GRE recommendations of the two local authority associations which follow the review of particular GRE components undertaken in the year by the associations and my officials. I am always prepared to listen to the associations' views on GREs if they think that they can be refined.
I have also taken account of the latest outturn data when apportioning, on the basis of the long-standing agreement with both the Welsh associations, total resources between counties and districts. This has brought the county and district shares more into line with the division of spending as it actually happened in 1981–82. I am aware that the change for the coming year has led to claims from the districts —I have seen the document which they have circulated to hon. Members — that they have been unreasonably treated. They say that, because their expenditure fell in 1981–82, they have been penalised by a reduction in their share of both aggregate GRE and, therefore, block grant in 1984–85. I do not accept that. It would have been unreasonable for me to increase their share of GRE and block grant above that justified by actual spending in the latest year for which final figures are available. In any event, we should not ignore the significant element of district expenditure met by specific grants which is excluded from GRE. When that expenditure is taken into account, the districts' share of total spending will be virtually unchanged next year. In any event, it is vital to bear in mind that the block grant transferred from districts to counties has not been lost to Wales. Consequently, the overall effect of the change on rates, at the all-Wales level, is nil. Secondly, the safety net provision which I set for the current year is being continued. It protects ratepayers from changes arising in GREs and at the ratepayer level is equivalent to 5p—1p for the districts and 4p for the counties.
Before concluding, I should like to mention rates. Hon. Members will know that I cannot predict the rating or precept decisions made by authorities. It is obvious that they will vary from authority to authority. However, it is worth examining what has happened to rates recently. For the past two years Opposition Members have said that the modest reductions in the grant percentage in the settlements are bound to result in enormous rate increases. Each year they have been proved totally wrong. Between 1981–82 — the first year of the separate Welsh rate support grant settlement — and the current year, the average general rate poundage has increased by about 4 per cent. That is considerably below the rate of inflation for the period and must have been of substantial benefit to industry and commerce in their fight to restore competitiveness and profitability. For the domestic ratepayer the increase during the same period was somewhat higher, but even here the average domestic rate increase last year was less than 1 per cent. Clearly it is to everyone's benefit if the level of rate increases in the coming year can be kept down to that amount. Indeed, there is no reason why that should not be the case.
When I announced the details of the settlement last December there were reports in the media to the effect that an average rate increase of 17 per cent. was likely. I said then, and I repeat now, that I simply do not believe that that will be the case. Such a figure implies an average increase of around 7 per cent. in revenue expenditure— that is 2 per cent. more than the likely rate of inflation. That would be an irresponsible and unjustified amount. Authorities can, on average, increase their net revenue expenditure next year by nearly 4 per cent. and still spend in line with targets. If they do so, even ignoring the use of balances, the average rate increase will be very small, and certainly below the likely level of inflation. If only half the balances which authorities have applied in the current year were to be applied, the average rate increase would be no more than 1 or 2 per cent. As I have told my own county of Dyfed, authorities should ask themselves whether it serves to push up their spending above those levels—and even in the case of Dyfed above what the county planned to spend as recently as last August— thus depriving their ratepayers of substantial grant and imposing burdens especially on local industry and commerce.
In that respect I was amazed to read in today's Liverpool Daily Post that Clwyd's policy and finance committee was recommending the full council to agree a massive 24p increase in next year's precept. The newspaper report went on to say that that was against the advice of the county treasurer, who warned that unless spending was curbed in the future there would be a further massive consequential increase in the 1985–86 precept. A 210p precept for 1985–86 was quoted. That would involve a 40 per cent. increase in the precept in two years. That would severely damage all sectors of the community. As an illustration, it would mean an additional impost of something in excess of £100 per employee in manufacturing and add about £90 to the average domestic rate bill.
It is no wonder that the chairman of the county's industrial committee warned that the proposed increase to next year's precept would hinder attempts to attract new industry to the county. He can say that again. The Government have made enormous efforts to help the economic regeneration of the area and the county provides

substantial support for industry. Imposing an increase of that size contradicts the county's industrial policies and would be totally irresponsible. It is no good saying that individual ratepayers can get rebates. Industry and commerce cannot and have no option but to pay those swingeing increases. I can think of nothing more damaging to existing industry and commerce in the area and more of a disincentive to attracting new industry. The final decision rests with the full council, and I urge it to think long and hard before accepting such a damaging proposal. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in that request.

Mr. Barry Jones: Of course the full council will make the final decision. The right hon. Gentleman has not told the House that the Clwyd county authority's treasurer proposed a 19p rate increase.

Mr. Edwards: I repeat what the county treasurer said and the remarks that I quoted. I also repeat that increases on that level would be seriously damaging to the arrival of new industry.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I shall not give way again. I want to draw to a close. The hon. Gentleman is about to make his own speech.
I want to draw attention to the contrast between what is happening in Clywd and what is happening in South Glamorgan. Hon. Members will have noted the recent decision of South Glamorgan county council to spend in line with its expenditure target for the coming year, although the cash increase on its present budget is limited to about £2 million or 1·5 per cent. What is more revealing, however, are the comments attributed to the council's Labour leader. He says that services need not be cut, that there will be no redundancies, and that the rate for the coming year, while increasing by about 6 per cent., will still be below the level charged in 1982–83. That confirms what I have said all along about the achievability of the targets, the scope for efficiency savings and the need for only modest rate increases. I commend the South Glamorgan council for its efforts. If every authority in Wales—north and south—showed the same resolve to contain spending and protect ratepayers there would be no grant penalties next year, and only modest rate increases.
I conclude by repeating my view that the settlement, while tough, is fair and reasonable. Of course authorities have difficult decisions to take. Of course authorities have to accept that many projects, desirable in their own right, cannot go ahead. That is inevitable when expenditure needs to be reduced. But I am confident that the substantial majority of Welsh authorities will continue to demonstrate, as they have done in the past, their responsibility when grappling with these problems and their determination to see that any increase in the rate or precept is kept to the absolute minimum.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State may be unwise in basing part of his case on newspaper cuttings, the ink on which is scarcely dry. I agree with him that, in the case of the Clwyd authority, it will be the full council that will make the final decision. That will probably be the case with all the local authority examples cited today in the immediate weeks or month ahead. Nevertheless, it was the right hon. Gentleman and


not I who mentioned Clwyd. I ought to tell him and the House that the controlling group in the Clwyd county authority is by no means Labour. There is no doubt that it will be for his friends on the county authority—the Conservatives and the independents—if they wish, to obliterate the propositions that have come forward.
The real question is how the right hon. Gentleman could so screw up local government finance in Wales that a non-political county treasurer of sober professionalism, rectitude and responsibility was moved to propose a 19p increase. That is a measure of how the policies of the right hon. Gentleman have gone wrong. He raised this example and I tell him that it is the example that damns his policies. We will see in the weeks ahead how his friends on the county authority respond to measures that were designed to save services and jobs in the face of an attack by the right hon. Gentleman on local government in general.
That was in essence the content of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. When in a weak position, he decided to attack. His speech today was an attack on local government. He conceded a considerable loss of jobs in local government throughout Wales over the past five years. He made, in my view, a selective presentation of statistics. He looked at existing local government services through rose-coloured spectacles and he even dragged in at one stage the weary alibi of this Government—the world depression.
As for the report presented to this House, "Welsh Rate Support Grant 1984–85", whilst I do not say that it was the case this time, there is perhaps a tradition across all Governments that such reports are conceived by desiccated calculating machines. With regard to grant-related poundage the right hon. Gentleman has this in his report:
for R greater than 1
GRP = PGRE + [PGRE X A X (1·10 X Rto the Power B — 1)]
That is the sort of report that we have been given by the right hon. Gentleman. Nowhere in his speech did he suggest that he understood the humanity with which this report attempts to deal. It was the tragedy of his speech. He gave no hint that ultimately this support grant affects in a decisive manner the quality of everyday life in the land of which he is the political head.
This grant affects the number of home helps, residential places for the elderly, assistance for the disabled, the requirement for council housing and the availability, for example, of concessionary fares schemes. Nowhere in his speech did the right hon. Gentleman show his deep commitment to, or his concern at the erosion of, vital local government services.
Leaders of local government in Wales are angry and bitter at this settlement. Be they elected or professional members, they know that these terms are injurious to the level and the quality of the many services that local councils provide for our people. Many leading authority members are questioning the value of the right hon. Gentleman's consultative committee. The committee of the Welsh district councils vehemently criticised and objected to their block grant exemplifications. I know that there have been complaints about delays and inadequate time for proper consideration and discussion of matters which are of vital consequence to local government.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the district authorities, and particularly their association. They do a good job. It is quite clear to me from what they have told

me that severe financial consequences will folow from the loss of block grants. In the area of Aberconwy, the block grant has been cut by £232,000. In my own district authority, Alyn and Deeside, it has been cut by £266,000. This is an area afflicted by some 18 per cent. unemployment. In Colwyn, the block grant has gone down by £238,000, about a 10·6 per cent. cut. This is an area where male unemployment stands at 18·3 per cent. In Monmouth, the constituency, I think, of the Minister of State, the block grant has been cut by £352,000, about 13 per cent., arguably equivalent to a rate poundage of 5·1p. In South Pembrokeshire, a place that the right hon. Gentleman knows, the cut in block grant is £238,000, a matter of just 8·7 per cent. He knows that in Pembroke Dock, the male unemployment rate is 27 per cent. South Pembrokeshire cannot stand the injurious impact of his so-called settlement. In Ynys Mon the cut in block grant is £403,000, about 12 per cent. Male jobless there are 25·9 per cent. of the population.
The House might be interested to know that so severe are the consequences of the right hon. Gentleman's financial policy in Wales that in Wrexham Maelor the spending cuts have forced the council to decide that it can no longer pay the £5 monthly food bill of Nigel, the mouser. The cuts have bitten that deep.
Throughout Wales instances come to mind where the Secretary of State is putting under severe pressure the entire apparatus of local government. Under his regime, cuts in services run by the county authorities will bear most heavily on education and social services. There may also be manpower cuts in areas that are already severely affected by large-scale unemployment.
The best example is Gwynedd. I am informed that, until Gwynedd spends 1·5 per cent. above its target, the grant loss will be much greater than the overspend. The £1·4 million that Gwynedd must remove from its budget will decimate services. The council is considering cutting its nursery, primary and secondary teaching staffs, reducing the provision of transport to secondary schools, and increasing charges for home helps.

Mr. Wigley: Did the hon. Gentleman hear, as I did, the Secretary of State suggest that the penalty would not be more than 100 per cent. for those authorities spending below GRE? That is exactly what is happening in Gwynedd, but Gwynedd has been clobbered because the loss of grant is substantially higher than expenditure.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member makes an effective point. If Gwynedd spends at its assessment, it will lose £2·6 million. That does not sit well with the assertions made by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box only a few minutes ago.
To meet its expenditure target, Dyfed council must consider reducing teaching staff by 75, and the closure of all community centres. It is even considering the closure of 11 part-time fire stations.
In Mid-Glamorgan, expenditure will be reduced by cutting the number of teachers by 170. That authority is considering reducing its social services staff by 100, increasing the charge for concessionary bus fares from £2 to £3, and, remarkably, imposing a £2 charge for disabled people's car badges. In that county about 34,000 people are seeking work, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement will bear hard on them.
West Glamorgan authority faces a difficult choice between two unpalatable options: the imposition of an


unwelcome rate increase of 12 per cent. on domestic and industrial ratepayers, or the reduction of expenditure on education, which in its view and mine would inevitably damage the present level of services provided. Those are true statements, and they are the consequence of the Government's policies. West Glamorgan, which is a fine authority, is contemplating major policy changes to achieve even a rate increase of less than 10 per cent.
A horrific line of examples comes to mind. Gwent authority will provide fewer separate remedial classes in schools. There will be no additional telephones for the disabled and no home help services at weekends or during holiday periods. It is almost certain to close one or two homes for delinquent children, and extra cash will not be available to check the decline in public transport.
The reason why some councillors in Clwyd were worried about the level of services was that a long list of new building projects may not go ahead, including proposed schools in Northop Hall, Denbigh, Sychdyn, Flint, Colwyn Heights and Llanrhaeadr. The list is almost endless, and from my inquiries I believe that it is the consequence of the settlement proposed by the right hon. Gentleman today.
The Secretary of State tried to make the best of a bad job when discussing the Welsh district councils. However, those councils had an increase of only 0·1 per cent. in their targets for 1984–85; 14 of them suffered cash reductions of up to 10 per cent. compared with their 1983–84 budgets; and in only seven authorities were the increases in target sufficient to meet inflation. The Welsh district councils are up in arms and are deeply disappointed by the settlement imposed upon them. They say, and I believe them, that the volatility of the Welsh system with its GREs and targets goes against sound financial planning by local authorities, especially district councils, whose expenditure represents only about one sixth of the total.
Although none of the decisions is final, I would quote a letter to the Association of District Councils from Ynys Mon council:
If we keep to the same level of expenditure next year as in the current year with 5 per cent. inflation and after adjusting downwards by 1 per cent. for the saving in the national insurance surcharge, our rate in the pound next year will be 41p, an increase of over 50 per cent.
The Secretary of State spent some time defending his position on targets, but the evidence from Ynys Mon shoots his theories to pieces.
The letter continues:
In 1982–83 we were some £0·4 million over target and suffered penalty. In 1983–84 we will be within target and will not have any penalties imposed. In 1984–85 we again will be above target, because we cannot hope to find £0·5 million and maintain services at a reasonable level and penalties will be attracted.
Alyn and Deeside district authority also wrote to the association, saying:
Generally one can see the area beginning to look neglected, which was not the case a few years ago. I refer to vandalism not attended to, graffiti not removed, litter that could be cleared perhaps with more expenditure … and more men on cleansing. There seems to be a general decline and I could indicate many areas where using additional financial resources cost effectively one would readily see an improvement in standards from which the community would benefit.
The chief executive of Newport council said that there will be significant cuts in services, and that expenditure on industrial publicity will be slashed by half. Of the enterprise zone, the jewel in the crown of the Secretary of State's entrepreneurial thinking, Swansea city council says:

The scope of the work next year is limited and the knock-on effect is that further industrial sites within the zone will take about 1 to 2 years longer to be completed. New private unit factory building will suffer the knock-on effect.
About the Swansea maritime quarter, the city council says that work on
the tourist development infrastructure is affected and scaled down … essential items … will take about two years longer to complete. As a result the private sector involvement will have to follow on accordingly.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has been extremely assiduous in examining individual cases. I do not wish to do him an injustice but he seems to have studiously avoided my right hon. Friend's reference to the remarks of the Labour leader of South Glamorgan authority, who said that it was possible in that case to combine the reasonable control of rating with no harsh cutting of services. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Jones: It would have helped if I had been given beforehand the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is conceivable that during this year some authorities have raided their balances to enable their rates to be contained. Many decisions have not yet been taken, notwithstanding some of the instances to which I have referred. I may have in part at least an explanation in answer to the query raised by the hon. Gentleman, of which he gave me no notice.
As I was saying before I was interrupted so courteously, the private sector involvement in the Swansea maritime zone will have to follow on and be delayed accordingly. The remaining reclamation in the Swansea urban reclamation scheme will be delayed if the Welsh Development Agency's money is kept back. Perhaps the Secretary of State has a view about WDA moneys. He may give us an assurance that they will not be cut.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that the urban development grant, a Government initiative, has led to enormous progress with the maritime zone in Swansea and a commitment approaching £50 million in private sector money. That is something that the Government stimulated and it is not being suddenly cut back.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws but, if it gives him comfort, I shall concede in this instance. I accept that he has propelled the scheme.

Mr. Anderson: Does my hon. Friend find it puzzling that the Secretary of State is so ready to praise Swansea city council and West Glamorgan county council on their enterprise in two key areas—the maritime quarter and the enterprise zone—but considers them irresponsible and unreliable in other areas, which leads him to fine them and unconstitutionally to threaten them?

Mr. Jones: Yes, he does so in a most unconstitutional way. I merely say that if the WDA budgets are slashed, the great scheme at Swansea will be limited. I remind the Secretary of State that there are 17,000 unemployed within the Swansea travel-to-work area. Every time he cuts budgets, the hopes of the unemployed fall back.
In north Wales Glyndwr states:
One capital scheme will reluctantly have to be shelved … the provision of infrastructure for a new industrial estate in the town of Ruthin. In normal circumstances a sum of £150,000 would have been spent on the first phase of a small industrial estate.


In west Wales, Llanelli has stated that new industrial projects will be postponed. The Islwyn borough council has said that reduced resources will be available only to regenerate industry within the borough.
That is a catalogue of disaster for the district authorities. I do not share the Secretary of State's view on the finances that he has outlined. The level of relevant expenditure makes entirely inadequate allowance for inflation and for increasing demands for local authority services as a result of the recession. It is only 4 per cent. above the level for the current year and very little above the budgets of local authorities for 1983–84.
The right hon. Gentleman has failed to tell authorities of the crucial assumptions that have been made in arriving at a figure which no local authority treasurer can accept as realistic. This is an important factor, although it is technical, but much of the report is extremely technical. Local authority financial advisers believe that loan charges are understated by £8 million due to the use by the Treasury of an artificially low forecast pool rate of interest. If the right hon. Gentleman speaks later, there may be a detailed reply to the question that is raised by that issue. Throughout local government in Wales there is some perplexity at the low rate of interest—10 per cent. —that is being pushed.
Having set an entirely unrealistic expenditure level, the Secretary of State intends to increase the problems of local authorities and ratepayers by reducing the rate of grant. I am advised that it has been calculated that by this one act alone rate bills in Wales will be more than 4 per cent. higher than they would otherwise be.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to specific grants, and I accept that many of the schemes that he funds by that means are extremely good schemes. I concede that they are located very largely in areas of high unemployment and that they are to be welcomed. The problem for the coming year is that, notwithstanding the increases in specific grants, the right hon. Gentleman is not putting extra cash into the kitty. The increased specific grants will reduce the cash that is available in the form of block grant. I am advised that it has been calculated that there will be a 0·4 per cent. reduction in cash terms, which in real terms will amount to 5·5 per cent. I am sure that his advisers will tell him to concede that.
There can be no justification for the much tougher penalties that he has proposed. The proposed scale of penalties for 1984–85 is more severe than that for 1983–84, yet all the local authorities have made genuine efforts to contain their expenditure. I believe that the 1983–84 excess spending over aggregate targets—I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows all about these details—was but 1·7 per cent. The House thrives on details and the right hon. Gentleman has always been able to master them. As a reward for the authorities' efforts, he now intends to impose even more impossible targets and even tougher penalties.
It is estimated that local authorities in Wales will have to reduce their expenditure by more than 3 per cent. in real terms if they are to meet their expenditure targets. This is the nature of the statistical detail and the attack that the right hon. Gentleman is making on local government services. The Welsh rate support grant takes insufficient account of inflation and its effect upon Welsh local authority budgets. It takes no account of expenditure

growth as a result of Government policies. It relies on the optimistic Treasury view of interest rates in the coming year and fails to provide extra Exchequer grant for Wales to meet, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own estimate, a 5 per cent. increase in 1984–85 in his contribution to home improvement grants.
Overshadowing the debate is the Rates Bill. The debate is to be seen in the context of the move by central Government to usurp the long-established democratic powers of local government. The authority of the office of the Secretary of State for Wales is being lent to a central Government drive for near-authoritarian power over local government. The Department has already espoused dubious penalties and targets.
The right hon. Gentleman, in the Welsh context, is fighting the wrong war. His two enemies are the Treasury and No. 10, but he has declared war upon his allies. He has taken the big stick to local councils in Wales, whose records are honourable and impressive. We have Big Stick Nick. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in 1973 in the Grand Committee that the right hon. Gentleman could be described as Globtik Nick, and now we have Big Stick Nick. He is bashing local government to such a degree that it is on the point of disintegration. It is unstatesmanlike of the right hon. Gentleman to offend the whole of local government in Wales. The Welsh Office should have attempted to exempt Wales from the Rates Bill and a settlement of the sort that we are discussing.
The Department should have said to the bully boys in No. 10 and in the Treasury that it oversees only eight counties and fewer than 40 district authorities and that it knows every local government leader personally, by name. That should be recognised within the context of the Rates Bill and the settlement. Instead, local government throughout Wales feels betrayed. The right hon. Gentleman must think again, for what he proposes is bad for the people of Wales.

Mr. Tom Hooson: The Government have a pressing need to bring local government expenditure under control because taxes and rates impose a burden on productive industry, and that is a great obstacle to the recovery of our prosperity. The Government are entitled to press local authorities for greater efficiency in their expenditure because well over half the total expenditure by Welsh local authorities is funded by central Government.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Audit Commission. Who can disagree with the commission's description of local authorities as
large organisations with the inertia that often comes with size"?
It is unthinkable that there is not the opportunity for any large organisation to find the means to economise on its expenditure. The Government are entitled to press local authorities for economy, because this year authorities are, without exception, receiving a cash increase. In each case, the increase is at least 1·5 per cent., and in some cases it is as much as 6 per cent. That is not a small matter. Those increases are being made after allowing for the reduction next year in the national insurance surcharge.
I heard with relief my right hon. Friend's statement on 20 December that this year the Welsh Office will consult Welsh local authorities on a review of the working of the grant-related expenditure formula. It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to hear that I look forward eagerly to the


results of that review. I declare an interest as a Member representing part of Powys, the most sparsely populated county not just in Wales but in England. What I say is of relevance also to Gwynedd and Dyfed.
Education costs rise when there are small rural primary schools and there is a need to provide transport from large rural areas to secondary schools. The GRE formula for England assigns a 2 per cent. allowance for sparsity of school population for primary education and 1 per cent. for secondary education. As a comparable document for Wales is not available, I assume that Wales is in line with that provision, but the real costs are not in line with that inadequate theory. Powys county council's estimated cost for school transport in 1983–84 is £1,533,000—5·13 per cent. of its education budget. By comparison, school transport in the whole of Wales takes little more than half that — 2·69 per cent. A clear £700,000 higher cost is borne by Powys county council for the obvious reason of geography.

Mr. Anderson: Surely the solution is in the hands of the county council. According to the earlier spurious analysis, the council can take action if there is scope for increasing efficiency, improvement and cutting down manpower.

Mr. Hooson: I am talking about the allocation of funds throughout Wales. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to lead me in a different direction, and I refuse to go in that direction.
The school meals service is obviously more expensive in rural areas, where children would not be expected to travel 10 or 20 miles home to lunch.
Wales, unlike England, does not single out sparsity factors for fire services. Provision is made for fires per 1,000 population. That does not recognise that a rural area cannot operate with only one central fire station. The standard defence — countervailing costs of dense settlement — needs close examination. However, I recognise the reality of such costs. Some of them undoubtedly occur in urban parts of Powys, such as Ystradgynlais. Is it fair that Wales should make special provision for urban density in the social service category while turning a blind eye, for example, to the greater cost of day centres for the rural population and the smaller number of visits that social workers can achieve when travelling long distances?
The working of the GRE formula has been so absurd in its impact on Powys that only the discretionary use of the safety net concept has saved the system from being undermined by its ridiculous nature. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having been good to Powys in regard to the use of the safety net, but I plead that the review should make a more factual examination of the cost of providing services in rural areas.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) was fascinating. He began by saying that the Secretary of State had every need to press local authorities to cut their expenditure; but the Secretary of State had said that, by and large, Welsh local authorities were abiding by the pressure to keep down expenditure. Having made the general point, the hon. Gentleman pressed for greater

expenditure on his county. Some of his points were well made. He appreciates that those aspects are relevant to Gwynedd and Dyfed and, in part, to other areas in Wales.
Equally strong points can be made for some of the urban areas in Wales. When those factors are aggregated, a greater demand is made of total resources. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to join the Opposition in the Lobby to press for those resources.

Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Gentleman, who has a long and a distinguished record in business, accept that there is creative tension between a budget limit and the desire to get maximum efficiency from the spending of that budget? One is not a contradiction of the other. It is the achievement of good management in local government.

Mr. Wigley: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are, I believe, in favour of good management and of local government getting the best possible value for money. None the less, the hon. Gentleman rightly underlines the need for greater resources to be available in areas such as Powys to meet the great burden of maintaining the home help service, and other social services, school meals and the fire service, and the people of Gwynedd certainly agree with that.
Given the concession by the Secretary of State that there has not been gross overspending by local authorities in Wales, the Government would be well advised to accept amendments to remove Wales from the scope of the rate capping Bill which is currently before Parliament. That would give Welsh local authorities some confidence, which they badly need, given the pressures they have been under in recent years.
One aspect of the settlement—I raised this matter by intervention to the Secretary of State earlier today—is the reduction in the block grant to maintain services in Wales. If the increase in specific grant of £21 million, together with the supplementary grants and domestic relief, are considered, the block grant for Wales will be reduced from £802·5 million in 1983–84 to £799 million in 1984–85. That sharp edge will have a serious effect on the level of services maintained in Wales and on counties such as Gwynedd.
The position in Gwynedd is ludicrous, because the target for next year is £89·5 million but grant-related expenditure is £92·2 million. The Government, through the formula on grant-related expenditure, recognise that there is a strong case for a level of expenditure of £92·2 million. If that is not the meaning of GRE, it has no meaning. Next year's target was as low as £89·5 million, because of the way it was put together. It was put together arbitrarily. It includes a proportion of the Government's assessment of the authority's needs — the GRE — a proportion of the authority's past expenditure and a proportion of the authority's latest budget, as I understand it.
In 1975 I remember the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), saying in the House that Gwynedd was not receiving enough grant to sustain services. He said the same in 1976, 1977 and 1978. By 1979 Gwynedd was about £4 million short of what it needed to maintain services. That case was put time after time by Conservative Members, in opposition, yet when they come into Government they accept that and relate the targets to a historical pattern which was unacceptable to


them when they were in opposition. Gwynedd now has a target about £3 million below GRE. If it spends minimally over the target, it starts to be hit very hard, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said.
The Secretary of State, possibly inadvertently, misled the House when he spoke about the effect of penalties on 20 December. He said:
The grant withholding penalty for spending in excess of targets has been strengthened. As in the present year, the amount of grant withheld for excess expenditure up to 1 per cent. above target is 40 per cent. of that excess but above that level the rate of holdback increases progressively with a maximum rate of 90 per cent. for authorities spending 5 per cent. or more above target". — [Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 273.]
That is true as far as it goes, but the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the effect of clawback, which, together with those penalties, has a devastating effect on a county such as Gwynedd.
If Gwynedd spends £90·25 million, which is about £680,000, or 0·75 per cent., above target, and it is easy for something like that to happen, it will lose no less than £1·8 million, taking the penalty and the clawback together. The effect on rate-borne expenditure is an increase of £1·8 million for merely overspending by £680,000. In other words, for a 0·75 per cent. overspend the county will have to find 5·5 per cent. more in rate-borne expenditure. The Secretary of State did not tell the House that. As Gwynedd's target is so far below the GRE, it may, despite all its efforts, find itself spending a little over target. The effect of that upon the ratepayer would be disproportionate and devastating.
Where the target is below GRE, there should not be that penalty in respect of the gap between target and the GRE. If there needs to be a penalty, it should not be more than 100 per cent., including both the clawback and the penalty. Will the Secretary of State consider that point? If we are to get out of the imbalance—it is not the fault of this Government or the previous Labour Administration, because there are historical anomalies—the target needs to be moved nearer GRE. That matter needs to be thought about during the coming year. I hope that the means of achieving it will be found. Certain factors which have not been taken into account sufficiently in the past must be taken into account when drawing up targets and GRE.
A county such as Gwynedd has to bear additional costs arising out of the bilingual nature of the community. As the House is aware, my constituency is 84 per cent. Welsh-speaking. However, there is a need, rightly, to maintain services in both languages. We maintain many of our services in English for the benefit of the 16 per cent. of my constituents who are not Welsh-speaking. That is fair, but where there are such additional costs there should be an element in the formula that the Welsh Office uses which recognises the additional costs arising out of the language complexity. The cost of maintaining services in sparse rural areas—the element of super-sparsity which has been referred to—should also be taken into account.
I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor about the fire service. He was so right. There is a danger in having just one or two machines scattered around large rural areas. There was a serious fire in Caernarfon recently. The fire service had asked three times in recent years for a new high-rise

machine, costing £120,000. It did not get one. The machine it has at Bangor is 20 years old and its gears were not working on the day of the fire. It did not reach the fire until four hours after it started. That is unacceptable. The point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor is justified.
I want to refer to the effect of the settlement on district councils which is, if anything, more severe than that on county councils. The effect on the Arfon borough council is serious. The aggregate Exchequer grant has shown an increase of £21 million but a reduction overall in the grant available to maintain services. If one applied the grant available to district councils such as Arfon for the coming year, with existing real spending levels maintained, and not increased, then the grant as a percentage of expenditure next year will sustain 62·58p in the pound of total spending compared with 73·24p in the pound this year. It means that there will be an increase in the rate poundage from about 24p in the pound to over 30p in the pound. As a result of the change that the Welsh Office is proposing in this settlement, the Arfon borough council will need a rate increase of 25 per cent. to maintain services at the current level, assuming 5 per cent. inflation.
The rates which will be levied by Welsh district councils have to be increased drastically for 1984–85 to pay for the Government's mishandling of the housing renovation grants. The mishandling has been debated before and we know how serious the position is. There are about 100,000 families waiting for grants. About £300 million is needed to meet those applications.
The Government embarked upon a disgracefully dishonest policy, leading thousands of Welsh householders to believe that they were entitled to repair grants although the Welsh Office had not made adequate financial provision to fund them.
Those applicants are very anxious. They do not know whether they will have to wait months or years before they receive their grants. At the same time, local councils have been squeezed by the Welsh Office to meet the bill. The money previously available for other services will go towards those grants and other local services will be either severely reduced or axed, or the rates will be increased substantially. The danger is that the district element of the rates will have to increase by about 25 per cent. to maintain services. That is the effect of the settlement. The Secretary of State should take it to heart. He should press for extra money for the housing renovation grants to be made available from the Treasury because of our anomalous position. Had he succeeded in doing that, we would not be facing the problems that we are discussing and Welsh councils would not have such appalling prospects next year.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall be brief and, as usual, helpful. The system of local government finance and Government support for it is too complicated for any Back Bencher to begin to understand. One recalls Bismark's remark about the Schleswig-Holstein matter—that only three people understood it: the Prince Consort, who was dead, a German professor, who was mad, and he himself, who had forgotten it. Local government finance is in the same category. It is only too clear that the system is deeply unsatisfactory.
The basic and irredeemable flaw in the system is that it has a built-in incentive for irresponsibility. More than half the money for local government comes from central Government. Many, and in some boroughs most, of those who benefit from rate-borne expenditure do not pay rates themselves, including some of the councillors who vote for the rate rises, and many of those who pay the highest burden of rates have no vote in the matter.
All this adds up to a system that is much more profoundly flawed than any of the alternatives that were examined and rejected in the Layfield report. It is precisely on account of that fundamental flaw that the proposed Welsh Assembly, under devolution, would have been such a disaster. It would have conferred power without imposing responsibility. It is because of that basic flaw that the Government's present efforts to mend the system by tinkering with it are doomed to failure.
Even if rate capping proves to be a really effective method of ensuring that the most scandalously extravagant authorities are forced to rein back their expenditure, it will do nothing to oblige those councils to revert to more responsible policies, nor to induce their electors to exercise a stricter control over their extravagance. Still less, as experience shows, will the Government's measures be effective in preventing other councils which escape rate capping from imposing extravagant increases. We have just heard that Clywd county council's general purposes committee has proposed a swingeing increase of no less than 26p in the pound in its precept. Is not Clywd now ripe for rate capping? We shall be interested to hear.
Any elector in Clwyd could list a dozen ways in which Clwyd county council could cut its expenditure without damage to important services. On the one hand, any honest Clwyd elector has to admit that the county faces appalling problems, having, in the space of less than a decade, gone from the area with the lowest unemployment in Wales to the area with the highest—largely because of measures taken by the Government.
Clwyd, and some of the districts in Clwyd, find themselves faced with the cruelest possible dilemma and in the sharpest form. To attract new jobs they have to provide excellent facilities, but those facilities are a burden on the rates, and pushing up the rates frightens away the providers of new jobs. There is only one way out of this vicious circle, and that is to ask for more Government help, but Government help means more taxation, and we all know, although the Opposition do not always admit it, that the burden of taxation, particularly on the poorest members of the community, is now intolerable.
There is no easy way out, but at least we could look for a system that had built-in incentives for responsibility, in which each authority had to strike a genuine balance between what it could achieve by spending money and what it would lose by having to raise that money, instead of being able to slide out each time by demanding more money from the Government and then blaming the Government if it does not get the money.
This Government's greatest achievement has been to restore to people in this country a sense of personal responsibility for their own actions. However, everything that the Government have done in local government finance—all the more so after the false hopes they held out—has had the opposite effect and destroyed what

little sense of responsibility was left in this respect. I believe that they will come to regret most bitterly their failure to grasp the nettle of rate reform.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) that the Government are on the defensive when it comes to local government. We know that from recent votes by revolting Conservative Back Benchers— some of them are particularly revolting—from local authorities, and, indeed, from objective journalists who specialise in local government matters.
Local authorities feel that they are under siege—unjustifiably under siege. The hon. Member for Clywd, North-West was right when he said that there is a temptation to irresponsibility in the current system. However, he could not say that our Welsh councils and districts are falling prey to that temptation. Even the most rabid Right-wing journalists cannot find examples in Wales of grants to bodies such as the Clwyd gay babies against the bomb. If there are any, I shall be delighted to know.
The Secretary of State would find it extremely difficult to find examples among Welsh local authorities —certainly in my area of west Glamorgan and Swansea—of profligacy and irresponsibility. Indeed, the Secretary of State justifiably praised both those local authorities for the way in which they responded to Government initiatives — for example, the enterprise zone and the urban development project—the marina. It is hard to reconcile responsible local authorities, responding well to planned Government initiatives, with the picture of authorities like those in parts of England which are likely to spend substantially in excess of their targets. We know that there have been overspends, but, compared with the pattern in England, the Welsh overspend has been very limited. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State does not have the power in Cabinet to say that, as a reward for their relative responsibility, Welsh local authorities should be exempt from the penalties that are available in England.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend has not had to take action against individual authorities in Wales, as has happened in England.

Mr. Anderson: Unless and until there is clear evidence of irresponsibility on the part of Welsh authorities, those weapons are a useless threat, an insult and an affront to Welsh local authorities and to councillors who seek to behave responsibly and have done so in the past.
The assault on local government should be seen in the context of the promises made about rates by the Conservative party in 1974. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that rates would be abolished. There was a similar but somewhat more muted pledge in 1979. Then we had two committees—the first chaired by Lord Whitelaw and the second by the right hon. Lady — stating that the abolition of rates would be unrealistic. Nevertheless, the Government bring forward this unrealistic rate-capping proposal.
Since 1979 the Government have gone through a bewildering series of different financial regimes for local authorities. It is no wonder that treasurers feel uncertain. I shall not cite again the parallel of the Schleswig-Holstein


question. Central Government, with direct control over their own expenditure, have been too ready to criticise — certainly in Wales — extravagance by local government, and, as in other areas, there has been a buck passing operation of denying local authorities resources and then accusing them of not providing what they cannot provide because of the withdrawal of funds by central Government. Many commentators on local government say that the Government are destroying a basic constitutional relationship between central and local government, acting against pluralism and against the checks and the balances which have been a basic feature of our system. I concede, of course, that there would be a case for doing that if there had been a substantial overspend, or if there were clear evidence that a number of local authorities were determined at all costs to defy central Government priorities, but that is a world away from what is happening in local authorities in Wales.
We have heard certain anti-democratic utterances by Members of the Conservative party, claiming that because a substantial part of the local government electorate does not pay rates that in some way reduces the validity of decisions made by local authorities in respect of their own expenditure. The same utterances might be made about central Government. A fair proportion of our electorate obviously do not pay taxes. Is it suggested that they should be denied access to suffrage?
Any threatened overspend in my county and city is due to past cutbacks and the increasing burdens that often arise from objective factors, such as the increase in the elderly in the population and the high unemployment levels, which impose far greater demands not only on the social services but on a whole range of services—for example, through the education structure. West Glamorgan has estimated that it would need to increase the rates by 12 per cent. simply to provide what it considers an acceptable level of education. Swansea city council is now considering plans not to replace or buy any new vehicles and plant in the coming year. There is an interdependence between the public sector and the private sector in terms of their purchasing policies. These local authorities would tend to buy British in any event, so that would tend to work through to employment in other sectors. The city council is considering reducing the opening hours of public buildings, and deleting 20 posts in its parks. It is considering reducing the number of places on MSC schemes by approximately 100. These are key and important areas in which a non-profligate authority is forced to consider reduction against its wishes as a result of Government pressure.
No mention has been made in the debate of the effect on the voluntary sector, which Conservative Members in general purport to support so much. A local authority faced with central Government pressure on expenditure will first carry out its statutory duties. Any money left over will be left for the voluntary sector, intermeshing social and welfare projects between local authorities and the voluntary sector. All hon. Members must now have experience of key and important community organisations which are suffering as a result of withdrawal or threatened withdrawal of local authority grants. The Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless, in a city which has the largest homeless element anywhere in Wales, is now in difficulties. The citizens advice bureau in Swansea

recently threatened that it might have to close as a result of local government cutbacks, although happily an accommodation has now been reached. The effect can be seen working through the general local authority services beyond the principal statutory duties to bus grants, for example, where our constituents are finding themselves increasingly more isolated than their fathers and grandfathers were because of the withdrawal of bus services.
This is part of the failure of central Government to think long and to consider the problems that will face our communities when there will be fewer jobs to go round. Some key sectors are education and leisure and co-ordination between the public and voluntary sectors which are being put at risk as a result of the cutbacks. It is a depressing picture of increasing hardship and deprivation. The monetarists in the Cabinet may indeed gloat, but local people, particularly councillors who on any estimate have acted thoroughly responsibly in Wales, will not gloat. They will despair when they see the effects of the cutbacks that are being forced upon them.

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles: I should like to comment first on some of the points made in the tale of agony and woe recited by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I speak with a background of some 17 years' experience in local government in the mid-Glamorgan area, experience which is continuing, much to the annoyance, I am told, of some hon. Members representing constituencies in mid-Glamorgan. In those 17 years I have experienced a great deal of extravagance in local government. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will be well aware of the many occasions on which I have challenged the extravagance of the local authority on which he served at one time.

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I have made certain recommendations. One of the recommendations that I have made over the years is to reduce the district administration, the bureaucracy that exists in mid-Glamorgan, and has existed for many years. In the forthcoming estimates budget it has been decided to reduce that administration and to remove two district education officers and the back-up bureaucracy.
Today I received a letter from one of my constituents bewailing the fact that mid-Glamorgan has reduced the number of night sitting units from two to one. The constituent is a 65-year-old pensioner looking after a 93-year-old mother. She asks me to investigate why mid-Glamorgan is taking one night sitter a week away from her. I deplore that, of course.
I could tell my constituent that the cost of the night sitting facility in mid-Glamorgan, together with the cost of the meals-on-wheels facility which has recently been taken away, could easily be covered, indeed, more than covered, by one decision. That one decision would be to accept the recommendations of mid-Glamorgan's chief office to reschedule the county council's meetings so that members would be required to attend the county council on fewer days in the year than at present. That one decision would save £50,000 a year. If the county council were to discontinue the meetings that it holds on Saturday


mornings in Cardiff—Cardiff Arms Park beckons—that alone would equal the cost of the night sitting facilities which it is intended to cut back.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside spoke of the 170 school teachers who are to lose their jobs. That number includes the 46 school teachers whom mid-Glamorgan added last year, despite the plea of the Secretary of State for economies. The hon. Member for Rhondda knows well that he was one of those who insisted on refusing to accept the advice of the Secretary of State for Wales. He, and other members of the county council, talked last year about not accepting orders from a Tory Minister in the Welsh Office.

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose—

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I shall not give way, as there is very little time. The hon. Gentleman may have a chance to speak later.

Mr. Rogers: I was never in mid-Glamorgan under a Tory Government.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I am sorry to hear the hon. Member say that, but he knows that he was there in 1974 when the Conservative Government were in power.

Mr. Donald Coleman: rose—

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside spoke about the disintegration of the local government of which I have been a member for 17 years. My local borough council is far from disintegrating. In 1984–85 it plans to build new council offices costing £3½ million. The council has not taken that money from the block grant. It has gone to those horrible capitalist money lenders, the merchant bankers, to borrow the £3½ million, not to provide people with houses or leisure facilities, but to give councillors new council offices. That is being done by a local council which we are told is disintegrating.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside talked about how the loss of jobs in local government destroyed hope for the unemployed. The hopes of employers also fall back when they see the inexorable rate increases under Labour-controlled councils. They see no hope of achieving increased staff. I speak personally as a small business man. We look to 1 April each year to see what further rate increase will be imposed. As a result, we consider carefully how many people we employ. If we employ too many, we are bankrupt and can employ no one.
No one wants needed services to be cut. Local government should examine carefully the economies that can be made without cutting services. If it did that, it would be in the happy position of being able to look after both the people who use local government services and those who pay for them.

Mr. Geraint Howells: After listening to many Government Members and to the Secretary of State, we could be forgiven for believing that everything in the local government garden in Wales is rosy. Alas, it is not in 1984.
The most striking characteristic of the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1984–85 is the deep sense of injustice that it has inspired throughout the Principality. It has generally been acknowledged that, despite tremendous

difficulties in the past few years, the Welsh districts and counties have attempted to live within their means and have done their utmost to continue to provide necessary services. Instead of praise, they have been rewarded with the unpleasant task of finding further ways of cutting already depleted services.
It has long been agreed that the rating system is absurdly out of date and that it is high time it was reformed. Be that as it may, the Government's way of dealing with local government finance is turning a disgrace into a scandal. We were told by the Secretary of State for the Environment at Question Time today that the Government and his Department have no plans to reform the rating system. Try as they might, councils in Wales are unable to please central Government. The people of Wales will suffer in the long run.
In drawing up the settlement the Government have obviously disregarded all the obligations laid on the authorities and the difficulties that they face. For example, Ceredigion district council has told me about the tremendous cost of administering the housing benefit scheme. It has also voiced concern about the impact on the revenue budget of the increased level of home renovation grants. Indeed, during the current year many authorities have been obliged to stop giving grants, thus disappointing thousands of applicants and causing many of them financial loss. I emphasise that the renovation grants are financed at the expense of the rate support grant, which, of course, has been reduced. That can mean only further difficulties.
What word of comfort can the Minister give to applicants who have been cut short now? What word of comfort can he give this evening in the Chamber to those in various parts of Wales who are worried about their financial future?
My sympathy goes to the local authorities which have to make impossible decisions. In my part of the world, where there is high unemployment and an aging population, the needs are as great as anywhere in the country. Already a great strain has been placed on the social services. The education budget has been cut to the bone. No more cuts can be made without serious harm to the school population. The Secretary of State tried to present a rosy picture, but he did not tell us that fewer children are about today than many years ago.
Our roads needs far more attention, and all services at county and district level are operating at minimum level. It is time for the Secretary of State to think seriously about giving extra financial aid to county councils so that they can improve second and third class roads in rural Wales. Unemployment in parts of my constituency is 26 per cent. Why can we not repair the roads now and look forward to the 1990s? That is how we should plan ahead.
My constituency is within one county, and two district councils operate there. The decrease in the block grant is felt keenly. Although the figures are not as harsh as in some other parts of Wales, they are harsh enough in terms of the community's needs and the services that authorities are expected to provide. The expenditure targets, although increased, far from cover the results of inflation.
According to the Welsh office of the Association of District Councils, this year's block grant settlement will result in a cash reduction of £9·9 million. What effect will the cuts have on the elderly in Wales? What effect will they have on unemployment and on the economy of the area? I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of


the House will agree that it is about time that the people of Wales had their own Welsh Assembly to look after their own interests.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Raymond Gower.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. So far in the debate only one Back-Bench Member representing the principal Opposition party has been called. I am sure that you are aware that throughout this century in Wales, in Parliament and in local government, the Labour party has been predominant. In view of the concern expressed about the cuts in local government, some arrangement should be made through the usual channels for the debate to be extended.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is on a bad point. The debate is on a report in pursuance of an Act and can, therefore, be continued until 11.30 pm. There is plenty of time for all who wish to be called.

Mr. Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you bear in mind that hon. Members have been prevailed upon to cut their speeches to the bone?

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about that.

Sir Raymond Gower: I assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we recognise the great difficulty of the task with which he is faced and that he is doing his best to carry it out fairly as between central Government and local authorities.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made light of what he described as an alibi for the Government — namely, the world crisis and the effect that it has had on so many countries. The hon. Gentleman regards that as of little importance. In that context I should have thought it would be remarkable, where countries, not only in the West but even in the Third world, have suffered so savagely in recent years, if merely one section of national life — local government — should be exempt from the effect. The hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he accepted that there has been increases in expenditure and in money received from central Government, but felt that full account should be taken of inflation. In other words, whatever happened to other expenditure, local government expenditure should be indexed so that it would be unaffected by what happened to industry, receipts from national taxation and so on. That impossible thesis cannot be sustained. In that respect the report has my support and, I hope, that of my hon. Friends.
I share the view of some of my hon. Friends that the present system is unsatisfactory for the whole United Kingdom. The system of grants is so complex and difficutlt to understand that we must come to terms with it sooner rather than later. However, we are working within the existing set-up, and it is in that context that my right hon. Friend has presented the motion.
Much of the concern expressed by local authorities has arisen because they do not understand the formulae upon which the grant settlements are based. The formulae are far too involved, even though authorities have expert advice from their officers. There is a tremendous need for simplification of the formulae.
Some local authorities, like the Vale of Glamorgan, feel that they have done a responsible job for several years.

They have controlled their expenditure and carried out good housekeeping. In spite of that, they are not satisfied that they have derived any benefit. I hope my right hon. Friend can put forward valid arguments that will convince them. They have the impression that their efforts in the past have not apparently placed them in any better positon than irresponsible authorities.
Like Opposition Members, we wish to maintain essential services. We want the most needy to be looked after and the roads to be improved, but we do not believe that that can be achieved by inefficient or wasteful administration, as illustrated so graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles). We want the utmost efficiency in both local and national administration.
We hope this will be one of the last reports to impose on my right hon. Friend such an unpleasant task and that there will be a resuscitation of the economy to enable him to do better in future.

Mr. Ron Davies: When I was reading the report that the Secretary of State presented to the House I was interested to see on page 6, under expenditure guidance:
The Secretary of State considers that the present general economic conditions continue to require restraint by local authorities in the level of their revenue expenditure.
There is a fundamental difference between his view of what he believes he is doing by restraining expenditure and the view of the people in local authorities facing the consequences of his policies. His view of what he is doing is not shared by informed opinion in Wales.
For the record, I wish to read representations that have been received by the Welsh Office from the Association of District Councils in regard to the report:
Welsh District Councils' targets for 1984–85 are in total only £335,000 (or 0·15 per cent.) above their 1983–84 targets. If they budget at last year's level in real terms (i.e. 1983–84 budgets + 4 per cent.) they will incur grant penalties of some £7·9 million (£6 million more than in the current year) in addition to the basic grant loss of £9·9 million—a total grant loss, year on year, of £15·9 million or 21 per cent. of Welsh District Councils' budgeted rate-borne expenditure in 1983–84.
In fact, if District Councils in Wales budgeted for a no real term change in 1984–85 (i.e. 1983–84 budgets + 4 per cent.) these grant losses would result in the District Council part of the Rate Bill increasing by 30 per cent. over their own 1983–84 rate levies with individual Councils' increases of up to 50 per cent. The fact that they will not, of course, increase by these staggering percentages is immaterial. Instead Welsh District Councils will be forced into making swingeing reductions in service costs, increasing rents and charges well above the rate of inflation which will immediately feed into the cost of living index. This will, no doubt, result in draconian measures being taken to reduce service levels and standards in areas of high social economic and environmental needs. To the extent that rate increases this year are moderated by the use of balances this will only postpone the day of heavier rate increases.
In those two paragraphs of informed objective opinion Welsh local authorities have destroyed the case put by the Secretary of State to the House. If the Secretary of State wishes the people of Wales to accept his proposal on rate support for 1984–85, he should be prepared to offer substantive justification for his arguments. The justification should be more substantive than some of the frivolous points made by Conservative Members who chose examples of local government expenditure which were in dispute within their local authorities.
I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State today and on other


occasions in the House; I have also read what he has said in the press. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be offering three reasons in support of his claim that we must, in his words, restrain expenditure. He says that there is an overall need to restrain Government expenditure. That is the central policy of the Government. In the context of that statement, I read with interest in the Financial Times on Monday that Ministries, presumably including his Department, are being warned about overspending. The Financial Times said:
The reasons for the overshoot are not at all clear, but it is genuinely expected that the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement will be £2 billion above its £8 billion target in spite of the fact that Government revenues appear considerably more buoyant than was expected in March.
If the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues are saying to local authorities in Wales that they must account for every £1, £100 or £1,000 of their expenditure at the risk of paying substantial penalties, they in turn expect him and his colleagues in the Cabinet to conduct their affairs in a better way than is reported in the Financial Times.
If my local authority, Rhymney Valley, were to miss its target, as the Government have missed their PSBR target, by 20 per cent., it would this year suffer a penalty of £1·515 million. Rhymney Valley would suffer that penalty if it were as conscientious in its accounts as the Government have been in theirs.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument before I give way. However, had he been present for the beginning, let alone the whole, of the debate, I should have expected a more informed interruption and, indeed, been more inclined to accept his intervention.
I do not accept the Secretary of State's argument that there is an overriding need to constrain expenditure, nor do I accept what was said by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) and Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) about the crushing burden imposed on business and commerce by successive rate increases. I notice that they have now been joined in their lack of wisdom by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki). It would pay those hon. Members to have a word with the Secretary of State about the policy that he is following.
I was interested to read in a recent report from the CBI that, according to its figures, the cost to business and commerce was less than 2 per cent. of the value of industrial production. That is hardly likely to affect a thriving industrial and commercial sector.
I tabled questions to the Secretary of State to discover whether the volume of local authority rates paid by business and commerce had changed in recent years. I wanted to know whether there was an imbalance between domestic and non-domestic ratepayers. The figures that I received in a written reply will be of some interest to those Conservative Members who are concerned about the level of rate charges.
In 1979–80, in Wales as a whole, the total contribution made by non-domestic ratepayers was 60·9 per cent. In 1980–81, that declined to 59·6 per cent. In 1981–82, it went down to 59 per cent., and in 1982–83 it was 55·6 per cent. The latest estimates show that it will remain at or about that figure in the current year. Therefore, there has been a reduction of about 6 per cent. in the burden on business and commerce over the last few years.
As chairman of the finance committee of Rhymney Valley district council, I have on occasions received representations from industrialists about the situation they now face. We told them that we were prepared to waive the rate payments, at least until the end of the financial year. Time after time those industrialists were unable to cope, not because of the rate burden which has been put to one side, but because of the lack of demand in the economy. They were unable to sell their products or meet the high interest charges as a result of Government policy. Therefore, if such arguments are to be used in support of the business and industrial community, they should be advanced with more regard to the facts.
In Rhymney Valley in 1979–80, the total contribution made by the non-domestic sector was 57·7 per cent. In 1980·81, that declined to 53·4 per cent. There has been a continual and gradual decline, and in the 1983–84 financial year the contribution is 49·2 per cent.
The Secretary of State may argue that certain factors must be taken into consideration. I accept that. But Conservative Members must also accept that, because of the Government's decision not to increase domestic relief to ratepayers in line with inflation, the relative burden between domestic and industrial ratepayers has swung heavily against the domestic ratepayer in favour of the industrial and commercial ratepayer.
It took some time before I comprehended that argument. When I initially contacted my colleagues on Rhymney Valley district council, I asked, "Can you explain why the contribution paid by industry has declined from 58 per cent. to 48 per cent?" They told me, "That is quite simple. It is not that the Secretary of State has changed the formula or that he has taken any positive or negative action to change the balance, but that he has been closing factories so that fewer in the area now make that contribution."
The third argument — the Secretary of State has advanced it in the House and elsewhere — is that somehow a higher value should be placed on private expenditure: that somehow the pound from the pocket of the individual going into the private sector has a more beneficial effect on the economy, is more productive and will make a greater contribution to the overall community good.
No Labour Member would agree with that assumption, because it reduces the concept of public service to its lowest conceivable level. Such philosophy raises the standard of an individual who chooses to spend his money on video nasties above that of an individual who is prepared to pay his rates so that he can have theatres, libraries or museums.
If Conservative Members wish to argue for the virility of private expenditure, they should consider the value of such expenditure to the community and compare it with the value that derives to the community from public expenditure. Only public expenditure will give our communities the freedom to enjoy schools, playing fields, sports halls, libraries, museums, decent housing and care for the elderly and infirm. The 50p or £1 paid in rates has an intrinsic, economic and social value that is immeasurably greater than the grubby pound note paid over the counter of a video nasty shop. Therefore, let there be no more of the "beer and fags" argument that Conservative Members have adduced when discussing private expenditure.
I must inform the Secretary of State of the impact that these proposals will have on Mid Glamorgan and Rhymney Valley. In the current financial year—when the Secretary of State has said that there has been no cut or adverse impact on Mid Glamorgan—the county lost £3·491 million in grant holdback. The right hon. Gentleman cannot sit back and say, "Too bad, their target exceeded their GREA", or, "Their GREA exceeded their target", or, "They knew what the penalty would be."
If we look at the figures, we see that there is no relationship at all from year to year. Let us consider the way in which the relationship between GREA and target has changed. In the financial year 1981–82, my local authority's target fell short of the GREA figure by almost £1 million. The relative figures were GREA at £7·052 million and target at £6·004 million. The consequence of that was a penalty of £21,000. The figures were reversed in the following year by a method known only to the Secretary of State and his advisers. The Under-Secretary is looking puzzled. In 1982–83, the target figure was about £500,000 above GREA. The relevant figures were GREA at £7·435 million, and target at £7·992 million. As a consequence, grant holdback was £97,000.
How can the Secretary of State expect local authorities to budget on a year-to-year basis, or to have a rolling programme for two to five years, when they do not know what the figures will be from one year to the next, and do not know the impact of an imbalance between target and GREA figures?
This year Mid Glamorgan has lost £3·491 million, and Rhymney Valley has lost £362,000 as a consequence of Government policy. For the past three years neither Rhymney Valley nor Mid Glamorgan has been able to meet the targets that have been set. That has not been the result of profligacy by either authority. They do not wish to deny compliance with the Secretary of State, to be rebellious, or deliberately to inflate expenditure, but it is impossible for them to meet their targets without massively increasing rates and rents or making large cuts in services to the most disadvantaged and deprived people in our communities.
Those authorities, in trying to discharge their social responsibilities, are being pilloried by the Secretary of State. The ratepayers of both authorities are being subjected to crippling financial penalties. That is the measure of the report before us this evening. The most vulnerable members of the community will suffer severely. The services provided by local authorities are for the benefit of the vulnerable members of the community. Further cuts will deny services to the handicapped — [HON. MEMBERS: "Here he goes."]—Indeed. I could recite a litany of suffering for which the Government are responsible. Pensioners in Mid Glamorgan are being denied free concessionary passes.

Dr. Marek: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: Perhaps I may finish my remarks. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend will make his own contribution to the debate.
The disadvantaged in my community are suffering. Decent housing and proper care are being denied to the elderly. Children are being denied the opportunity to go to good schools. Standards are being reduced as a result of cuts in education expenditure. Swimming pools are shut

at weekends. Public transport is inadequate and local roads are deteriorating. The whole level of provision is affected by cuts in local authority services.
The Secretary of State's report gives a further twist to a spiral of deprivation in Mid Glamorgan and Rhymney Valley. The report is indefensible in terms of democracy, because it removes from local communities the right to self-determination. It is unjustifiable in economic terms and is in conflict with the Government's programme. Its application to the economics of those communities does not make sense. It is arbitrary in its application. Each and every local authority will have to pay the penalty for the report.
The effect of the rate support grant is punitive on the people of Wales. I hope that Conservative Members who have experience of local government, who know what the report means or who claim to care for the communities that they represent will join us in voting against the motion.

Mr. Keith Raffan: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) did his case no good by the exaggerated language that he has just used. I thought that he would have learned from the experience of the Opposition last year when they fell headlong into the trap of totally exaggerating the average rate increase in Wales. They said that it would be 7 per cent., but it turned out to be just 1 per cent. No further answer is needed to the points that he raised.
I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's attitude or by the way in which he put his case. It followed the over-the-top performance by the Alyn and Deeside school of dramatic art. It had more to do with "The Two Ronnies" than with rates in Wales. We know that the rate support grant is totally realistic.

Mr. Rogers: What a lovely Welsh accent.

Mr. Raffan: Scottish, actually. I know that you are not used to bluntness, but you will get it. The local authorities can maintain—

Mr. Donald Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Spaker. Are you accustomed to bluntness in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that he must address the House, not me. I am not responsible for the matter that he attributed to me.

Mr. Raffan: I apologise for my lack of courtesy. I did not mean to attribute that matter to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, only to Opposition Members. I do not retract what I said in that respect.
Local authorities in Wales can maintain the standard of their services under the rate support grant—there is no doubt about that—provided that pay settlements are kept down, that the totally unacceptable growth in manpower in the past year is reversed and that the local authorities rigorously pursue efficiency, economy and better value for money, as the Audit Commission recommended in its initial report.
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) suffered from selective amnesia in conveniently overlooking one borough and its record—the one in which he happens to reside. I refer, of course, to Delyn borough council. It has managed to keep


spending below the target for the coming year and to maintain the rate level at 28p in the pound. That will be done with no cuts in services and without raiding the balances. It will be done, in the words of the chief executive,
by getting the best possible mileage out of every pound.
That is in sharp contrast to Clwyd county council. Delyn runs its council extremely well on a rate that is the size of Clwyd's proposed rate rise. That is the extent of the staggering news that we heard yesterday from shire hall, Mold. A 16 per cent. increase in the rates is proposed. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside seemed embarrassed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point towards the end of his speech. So he should be. It is the Labour members in Clwyd who are pushing for that rate rise. The Clwyd Labour party is like a banana plantation, providing almost one banana skin a week for the shadow Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber, but he is already embarrassed by the behaviour of his local election agent, who proposed the closure of a local hospital. Now the local Labour party is suggesting an enormous increase of 24p in the 148p rate, which will therefore rise to 172p.
What will that lead to? A deputation came from Clwyd county council to the Welsh Office in London. Those people forget that a great part of the buck stops with them. They should look at their own costings, their budget and their expenditure if they are genuinely to attract jobs to Clwyd. It is no use them coming to the Welsh Office and whining to the Secretary of State about unemployment.

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. Raffan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly. I repeat, there is no point in a deputation from Clwyd county council coming here, no doubt at the ratepayers' expense, to tell the Secretary of State what he already knows, totally overlooking the fact that they have a responsibility to keep control of their budgets and their own expenditure. The best service that they can perform is to ensure that the tragically high level of unemployment in Clwyd is reduced.

Dr. Marek: Is it not a fact that, for every pound that Clwyd raises in rates, 90p at the margin will be stolen by the Government, and that, because of that, the finance committee is having to put the rate up so much?

Mr. Raffan: If Clwyd persists with its absolutely insane recommendation of yesterday, and if that is passed by the full council—I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is hoping that the Conservative and independent members of that council will get him out of the mess that he is about to be dropped into—Clwyd will have to pay a penalty of £4·2 million; for every £1 spent, £2 will have to be raised from the ratepayers. In the current climate, that is not just nonsense but totally insane.
One council in Clwyd, Delyn borough council, has a superb record in terms of budgeting, effective management and services to the people of its locality. Clwyd could learn much from the way in which Delyn has managed its manpower situation. For 1982–83, Delyn had a drop of 2·2 per cent. in full-ime staff and a drop of 6·7 per cent. in part-time staff. Clwyd, on the other hand, had a rise in full-time staff of 32 and a rise in part-time staff of 330, or

5·5 per cent. That continued the long-term unacceptable trend in Clwyd of increasing part-time staff, bringing the total increase to more than 700 in the last five years.
If one goes to Mold in my constituency—the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will be aware of this — and looks at the shire hall, one sees the sheer bureaucracy of the place. It is a jungle-like complex which is slowly encroaching on the town. When one examines the staffing of that complex, one sees that it is a local government empire which has little to do with the provision of efficient and effective services to the community.
We on the Conservative side are desperately concerned to see that the rates are not just kept under control but are reduced in Clwyd because we are in urgent need of new industry and jobs. I wish that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside were in his place because he formerly represented part of my constituency. A plant in that constituency, Courtaulds at Greenfield, employing more than 800 people, has struggled to survive. It has captured foreign markets and it cannot afford the scale of rate rise that has been suggested. If Opposition Members and Clwyd county council are serious about keeping jobs in Clwyd, let alone increasing them, I hope that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will speak more robustly than he has today against the insanity that we heard from Clwyd yesterday.

Mr. Donald Coleman: I will not follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) into the highways and byways of north Wales, although I probably know them rather better than he does.
It is interesting to note that the algebraic calculation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred, and which occurs in the rate support grant for 1984–85, gives further evidence of the cynical attitude of this Tory Government towards democracy in Britain. I refer to the present Tory Government because many people in the Conservative party perceive the damaging effects of the Government's antagonism towards local government and are extremely worried by the trend that it is taking.
Grave concern is being expressed among Welsh authorities as they contemplate this year's so-called settlement, which will result in a cash reduction of block grant to Welsh district councils in 1984–85, even if they spend only to the Government's target. The reduction is a substantial loss of grant, equivalent to a 10·5 per cent. reduction in real terms. It is unreasonable and unjust and is felt to be so by the local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside pointed out that the Welsh district councils' targets for 1984–85 were in total only £335,000 above their 1983–84 targets. If they budget at last year's level in real terms, they will incur grant penalties of 7·9 per cent., in addition to the grant loss which the rate support grant settlement will impose on them. It is time that the domestic ratepayers woke up to what the Government are doing to our cities, towns and rural areas in the guise of cutting public expenditure.
The experience of my county of West Glamorgan must be considered against the background of the introduction of block grant in 1981–82, which immediately put West Glamorgan at a disadvantage. The assessment of grant-related expenditure initially produced for West Glamorgan


an amount more than 6 per cent. below the average for Wales per head of population. Representations were made, and that has been improved to 4·5 per cent. for 1983–84 and to 3·6 per cent. below average for 1984–85. Nevertheless, this has an effect on West Glamorgan and perhaps it is no coincidence that other counties in the southern industrial belt of Wales, including Mid-Glamorgan, are also below average per head.
The position on the council's budget for 1984–85 is that a decision will be taken this month after a further review of budgeted expenditure and the impact of grant penalties. The education committee has been asked to look again at its draft estimates and at the measures that would be necessary to reduce them by about £2 million to accord with guidelines adopted by the country council last autumn. This request has been made because the county council's expenditure next year would require a rate increase of 20p in the pound, half of which would be required to meet the grant penalty for expenditure above the Secretary of State's target.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside said that the county council would have to face a difficult choice between two unpalatable options, either to impose an unwelcome rate increase of 12 per cent. on ratepayers, domestic and industrial—a course which would enable the right hon. Gentleman to impose further penalties on West Glamorgan, which, as this year, would have to be borne by the ratepayers — or to reduce education spending in ways which would inevitably damage the present level of service.
Perhaps that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants for our children and young people. It is only now being realised by people in Gowerton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) that the right hon. Gentleman's intervention during the general election campaign for political purposes has deprived children there of something beneficial.
Final decisions have not yet been made in West Glamorgan but all of the council's committees have adopted a rigorous approach to budgeting for next year. They have set out to achieve a 5 per cent. reduction in administrative costs. As West Glamorgan is perceived by the Secretary of State as an overspending authority, its budget for next year will inevitably lead to a grant penalty. Every additional £1 of expenditure loses the council another £1 in grant. The rate increase will inevitably be higher than the increase in spending and about one half of the county's increase will have to go towards paying the grant penalty. The same is likely to apply to no fewer than six other Welsh counties in 1984–85 to a greater or lesser extent. That is why there are fears that the Government's rate-capping legislation might be used to select most of the counties, in pursuance of the Secretary of State's objectives on expenditure levels. There is no sanity in that.
Ratepayers are having to find money not to improve, increase or maintain services but to pay for the Government's antagonism towards local government. That is why the Opposition and those outside the House who understand these matters regard the Secretary of State's proposals as unreasonable and unjust. That is why the Opposition will vote against the Government tonight.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: The longer one listens to the Opposition, the more one becomes aware of the fact that they have power but do not want to face the responsibility of it. They cry crocodile tears and want to spend, spend and spend again, but they are not interested in where the pennies and pounds come from. They maintain that everyone should be taxed as much as possible and that rates should be increased as much as possible. They are envious of small businesses and say that they create only video shops.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman a wetzki?

Mr. Terlezki: I am appalled that Labour Members who represent the Principality are not interested in attracting businesses to Wales. Nor are they interested in how to create businesses and jobs. We recently heard excellent news about the designation of a freeport in Cardiff. We also heard excellent news yesterday about a Severn crossing. That is wonderful news for Wales, for its capital city and for those who represent Welsh constituencies. However, the Opposition want only—

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I respectfully ask you to rule on whether the Severn bridge will be financed out of the rate support grant for Wales?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I was listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I hope that he will now address himself to the motion.

Mr. Terlezki: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but not to Opposition Members, if I have in any way misled the House.
I have spent about 27 years in local authorities. I do not pretend to know all the answers, but I have much more experience than most Opposition Members put together. South Glamorgan county council is spending thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money on political propaganda. Why should that money not be spent on schools, housing and old people's homes? The council knows that it can blame the Welsh Office for everything. Indeed, it blames everyone but itself and wants merely to spend. That is not the way in which to maintain services and to control local authority finances. We must be rational, reasonable and realistic. We should not continue to spend other people's —ratepayers' and taxpayers'—money.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Every day I seem to receive letters from local authorities complaining about cuts or threats of some sort from the Government. They also complain about Government interference.
I should like to draw the attention of the House of representations which I have received from Gwent county council. In August 1983 it was advised by the Welsh Office that its provisional target for 1984–85 was £168·242 million. The final target, which was announced on 20 December, was £165·821 million — a reduction of £2·421 million on the original notification. The council asks:
How can anybody budget sensibly against switches of this size at such short notice?
That is a reasonable point of view. The council has tried merely to maintain existing services — perhaps a standstill budget. There has been a series of swings and


roundabouts. The number of teachers has fallen in line with the fall in pupil numbers, but I should have thought that this was a good opportunity to make an onslaught on the pupil-teacher ratio. At the other end of the spectrum is the provision of home helps. The increasing number of old people puts greater demands on that service. However, merely by trying to maintain the status quo, Gwent finds that the standards of its services are declining.
The Government are laying down so-called targets and penalising local authorities if they do not comply with them. I recently received a protest from the National Bus Company officer of the Transport and General Workers Union. He complained that subsidies provided by Gwent council were inadequate, but what is the county council to do when it is hard pressed? The council is disgusted, as well it might be. It says:
What is most frustrating is that effectively choice is taken away from the local community. The County Council has resources. We could ask local people for modest increases in rates to cover urgent but modest improvements in services. But the penalty system, which takes away £1·7 million for the first 50p spent over target, and then takes away grant for every further £1 spent, makes it prohibitive to spend above the Government's arbitrary limit.
One can see the predicament in which Gwent county council finds itself as a result of the Government's action. The Government jackboot has been put into local government. The Government are kicking hard and causing suffering to people who already have only slender resources and who are least able to bear this sort of blow.
The Government try to justify their interference in the affairs of some of our local authorities by saying that they are the majority shareholder in local government undertakings. The Government's contribution as a percentage of rate aid for Welsh local authorities is given as 69·2 per cent., but this figure can be very misleading. In Newport, rate aid of approximately £5 million is 49 per cent. of target expenditure for 1984–85, but this target expenditure is the net requirement to be found jointly by ratepayers, who contribute 51 per cent., and the Government, who contribute 49 per cent.
The whole picture is false, because the total expenditure of the borough of Newport on current account is no less than £40 million. Most of this will come from rents and borough services, such as swimming baths, buses, leisure centres, car parks, factories and the golf course. If, therefore, the Government's contribution is related to total expenditure, it forms only approximately 12·5 per cent. —an entirely different picture from that which the Government are trying to portray.
In Newport there has to be all manner of cuts, as Mr. Cook, the chief executive of the borough, has pointed out in a recent letter. He cites street and civic amenity cleansing, with cuts in seasonal cover, and so on. I know from firsthand experience that there is tremendous concern in Newport about litter. This is the heart of the matter —inadequate services which the borough are having to cut. The borough has had to omit intended improvements in land drainage. When I went down to the Liswerry area of Newport I saw quite a number of gardens that were flooded. The local authority has had no resources to deal with the problem.
We had a spectacular event in Newport a week or so ago, when a group of parents and children almost caused a riot. They raided the mayor's residence because of a

decision by the borough council to close an adventure playground. This is what is happening as a result of the Government's cuts in local authority expenditure.
There is much more to it than that. Housing—the new build as we call it—is being cut back, as are renovation grants. This is affecting central heating in council houses. A man came to see me at my last surgery. He had a houseful of children, the central heating had been out of order for several weeks and he could not have it repaired because the council allegedly had no resources to deal with it.
The Welsh office of the Association of District Councils asks why Welsh district councils should lose grant in 1984–85. That is a very good question. There will be a cash reduction of £9·9 million, or 6·9 per cent., in the block grant, and it is felt that this is both unreasonable and unjust because expenditure has already been reduced in 1983–84 at the Government's behest.
It seems that local government, along with the trade unions, has now become a favourite target of the Government's offensive. Local government in this country has a great tradition and it should not be turned into a mere Treasury poodle. We may be living in 1984, but our message should be that Big Brother is not always right. One day, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, we shall again have a Government who appreciate the value of local government to the society in which we live.

Mr. Ian Grist: What a litany of gloom from the Opposition Benches—the only thing which, ironically, is clear, because what is not clear is how Opposition Members wish to pay for the various services for which they have been calling in the past five years.
I remind the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that his predecessors on the Opposition Benches predicted, year in, year out, the downfall of local government. It has not occurred. He quite clearly did not listen to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles), who cited the types of savings that could be made and actions that could be taken by a caring authority which thought more of the people in its care than of its own comforts and emoluments.
What is also evident from this debate is that most of this report is incomprehensible to most hon. Members. There was a brief time, when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when I thought that I had achieved a grasp of rates and of the rate support formula, but I think that it has been changed since then and, in any case, I have become a little rusty, like the three gentlemen in Schleswig-Holstein, and I cannot make head or tail of a great deal of it. I wonder how many hon. Members could tell the House what a guidance-related multiplier is, at the drop of a hat. Not many, I will bet.
Something which emerges very clearly from a discussion of the problems of local government is the need to continue the pressure for efficiency and control of manpower. I have been looking at the recently published "Local Government Statistics" and those of my own county of South Glamorgan. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend might like to note that the bookkeeping of South Glamorgan has been aided by raiding the balances built up by the supplementary rate which it levied in 1981–82 and


which, thanks to legislation by this Government, is no longer legal. That is why it has been able to keep down its increase this year.
Between March 1979 and March 1983 the numbers of full-time staff were cut by 2·75 per cent., part-time staff were cut by 2·9 per cent., and this at a time when labour was being shed in considerable numbers by state and private industry and by central Government. Local government managed to hold on, at high rates of pay, to the overwhelming majority of its employees. In the same period Cardiff city council cut its full-time staff by 3·85 per cent. and its part-time staff rose by 45 per cent. That was what it contributed to the welfare of its ratepayers.
What have we heard about the savings to be made in Wales by privatising certain local authority functions? It is worth while looking at what certain other authorities have managed to achieve in this respect. Bath city council has saved £300,000 in a year on refuse collection. Cambridgeshire county council has saved £700,000 on school cleaning. Ealing borough council has saved £600,000 on street cleaning. Wirral borough council has saved £1,400,000 on refuse collection. Wandsworth has saved £670,000 on street cleaning, £200,000 on garden maintenance, and £1,130,000 on refuse collection.
Those are the sorts of savings that could be made, will be made and should be made by local authorities in Wales. The money that they save can then be spent on those about whom we are all concerned—the old, the disabled and the young. However, if local authorities continue to spend money for their own purposes, we shall be having every year such debates and the prediction of the breakdown of local authorities.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Society of Metropolitan Treasurers, a highly regarded body that has no political axe to grind, has said that the 1984–85 rate support grant settlement involves the lowest level of grant aid to local authorities since the rate support grant system was introduced in 1967–68.
Since the Government came to power in 1979, they have consistently withdrawn support for local services and reduced their share of local budgets. The Government's share of local services in Wales has been reduced from 75·4 per cent. to 69·2 per cent. The Welsh office of the Association of District Councils says that for its councils the measures proposed for next year are totally inadequate and unrealistic. They will result in a loss of almost £10 million of block grant, which for them is a 7 per cent. reduction even before allowing for inflation at 4 per cent. The Welsh district councils expect a substantial cut in support.
Swansea city council, which covers part of my constituency, tells me that its support has been reduced by almost £1 million. The question is: from where will those councils make up such a shortfall? Yesterday another district council in my constituency, Lliw Valley, was forced to cut its planned capital expenditure programme for the next financial year from £6 million to £3·5 million. Therefore, sheltered accommodation expenditure for the elderly will be reduced from £610,000 to £250,000 and, for the first time, that council will not start any new council house building next year.
The Welsh district councils are in a difficult position. At the same time, local social services and the probation service, now partly run by the county councils, must be expanded and reorganised to comply with the requirements of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Compliance with the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, also passed by this Government, and the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 will require additional expenditure by local authorities.
The idea of community care is appealing, and somehow makes us believe that the community cares. Unfortunately, caring, whether at home or in hospital, is not a cheap option. The Government, far from supporting county councils as they take on those expanded roles, have the audacity, first, to withdraw from bearing their share of the cost and, secondly, to try to tell ratepayers that local authorities are to blame for rate increases.
That is typical of the Government's doublespeak. They have failed to keep their election promises, and they are trying to foist responsibility and blame, as always, on to someone or something else. In 1979 the blame lay at the door of inflation; in 1980 it was the trade unions; and in 1981 it was the world recession. By 1982, the promised land was at hand, and in 1983 it was on the way. The 1984 gremlin is to be local government, which the Government say is spending too much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) quoted from the article in the Financial Times showing the Government's spending record. He was right to say that the control of public expenditure was crucial to the Government's monetary policy. But we are now told that central Government cannot control their expenditure because local councils' spending is out of control. However, local council expenditure represents only about 25 per cent. of Government's expenditure. Since 1979, central Government spending as a proportion of gross domestic product has increased from 27·4 per cent. to 29·1 per cent. Yet, for the same period, on the Government's own figures, local authorities have reduced their spending as a proportion of GDP. Local councils' spending, in cash terms, and despite rate increases, has increased by 3 per cent. less than central Government spending.
How are local authorities thwarting central Government's spending targets? Who has failed to control spending? The Government promised to reduce taxes. Yet, thanks to their policies, Britain is one of the most highly taxed nations in the developed world. In addition to successive cuts in the rate support grant, it is estimated that an accumulated loss to local authorities of about £9 billion has occurred. If local councils had not borne those losses, and given the decline in the economy, central Government would have had to increase taxes by at least 3p in the pound. Local councils have had to bear the brunt of the Government's unwillingness to keep election promises.
The Govenment promised to reform the rating system. They will do so via the Rates Bill, but not in the fair way that everyone envisaged. Instead, they will ignore the real issue of reform and concentrate on castrating local democracy and accountability.
Welsh councils have been so careful in their spending that, of the 37 district councils, 34 will not be affected immediately by rate capping. Since they have made their contribution to economies, why should they be further penalised by cuts in the rate support grant? Perhaps the Government believe that, by taking those powers in the


Rates Bill, they will be seen as a strong Government. They will not; they will have shown themselves to be incapable of dealing with the real problem. Starving local authorities of funds, as in this rate support grant settlement, and ensuring that they stay starved by rate capping, will mean cuts in services which will affect people directly.
When my constituents complain about inadequate street lighting, the state of their roads, which are now pounded by 38-tonne juggernauts, the repairs that are needed to their homes, the need to refurbish schools and the failure to replace and update school-learning materials, they want action to be taken. My response to the complaints is not to write to the Secretary of State. I go to the local council and councillors. They are the people who provide the services. When the services are not provided, the consequences are felt immediately by local people. That will be the result of the Government's policy towards support for local services.
So much for the Government's promises to protect the nation's welfare, quality of life and standard of living. Let us not forget their promises to cut unemployment, to care for the sick, elderly and disabled, to subsidise local services, such as rural transport, to supervise and organise job creation schemes and to ensure that local authorities have the opportunity to provide services over and above the minimum required by statute — for example, free school meals and free school transport. Such services keep people in employment, but the cuts that will inevitably follow the reduced rate support grant will mean the loss of employment opportunities. People will also lose jobs or be thrown on to the scrap heap. The contribution that those people could make to the benefit of the community will be wasted. That is where the rate support grant cuts will lead us.
The Government are adrift. The Saatchi and Saatchi myths of purposeful, strong and single-minded determination are all being exposed as part of a propaganda exercise. The Government's policy is in a shambles. They are looking for a scapegoat, and this year's demon is to be the local authorities. When the Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will explain why the Government feel that they must transfer their own failure to come to grips with the problems of the nation on to the backs of local authorities. Why does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he can no longer support Welsh local councils, which have the best record in the United Kingdom for controlling public expenditure? What is his justification for cutting the support for services which are closest to the well-being of the people of Wales?

Dr. John Marek: Conservative Members have told us that we predicted that local Government would not be able to continue to function and that there would be large increases in rates. They have reminded us of those predictions and claimed that they have not come to pass. That may be so, but that is because of the quality of our councillors in Wales and the quality of the majority of Labour-controlled councils. However, they have continued to function at the price of cuts in services.
The cuts are not readily apparent, but they have been made. For example, we have not been able to build as many sheltered homes for old-age pensioners as we would wish. That means that old people have been dying earlier. That is not a cut to which one can easily point, but it is

one of the consequences of local government having suffered restrictions in the money made available to it over the past four or five years.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) talked about cuts in social services, I was sorry to hear Conservative Members laughing and talking. Their response was, "Here we go again." That is not the right attitude, for we are dealing with an extremely serious issue upon which we can deliberate properly only if we talk about it seriously.
It has recently been reported in the newspapers that a hospital which serves north Wales and treats cancer patients has a waiting list that is too long and that many cancer patients die before they can be admitted. That is a sad reflection on the quality of life that we are now receiving at the hands of the Government, especially after the past four or five years.
During the most recent Question Time for Wales I asked the Secretary of State whether the authorities were reaching their targets. He chose to direct his reply to Wrexham and said that its expenditure target was lowered because the borough council would not increase its rents. The council will not respect its target because it is aware of the difficulties faced by the neediest, the poorest and by those who generally need the most help. These people are mainly unemployed and living in council properties. If they are not in receipt of social security benefit, they have just enough money on which to exist by reason of housing benefit. The rent that they pay matters very much to each and every one of them.
The Wrexham rate for 1983–84 was 26p in the pound. The same rate was levied during 1982–83. It was 27·52p in the pound in 1981–82 and in 1980–81 it was 26·5p in the pound. In 1979–80 it was 21·5p and in 1978–79, when the Government took office, it was 23p. Over the past six years the rate has increased—this is what is perceived by the ratepayer—by 3p in the pound. That is a 13 per cent. increase overall during a period when the retail price index has increased by over 70 per cent. That is a good record of efficient management. Against that background, why do we need a support grant which cuts the expenditure target by such a savage amount for many authorities? It will cut the target for Wrexham Maelor by £300,000.
The rate support grant is about people and not formulae, although it might contain formulae. It is about whether we can build enough houses, whether we have to have young couples living in a front room with a television while their parents live upstairs. For how long will that situation have to exist in Wales? The support grant is about whether we can have an adequate supply of teachers and enough meals on wheels and not about formulae. The Government have it wrong this time because of their obsession with figures and statistics.
Rates have not increased significantly over the past six years, so why have the Government chosen to clobber the councils? Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer dictated that the economy will go to pieces unless we can cut local authority public spending? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to control the public sector borrowing requirement? As that requirement is not included in the calculations, that is not the reason. If there are no restrictions on local authority growth, will the monetary supply increase? That is not so, because we know that the monetary supply is not increased by local authority growth. There is a quid pro quo, because when rates increase extra money is taken from ratepayers.
Are the Government clobbering councils because they do not wish to discourage industrial development? Of course, no one on either side of the House wishes to discourage that. Nevertheless, it is true that rates amount to less than 1 per cent. of the costs incurred by industry. Therefore, that cannot be the reason behind the Government's policy. What is the reason? I do not believe that the Government have a valid reason. Their actions are based on political dogma. They wish the rich to get richer, and at the expense of the poorest in society.
The Secretary of State talked about Clywd county council. In 1983–84, Clywd county council received grant-related expenditure of £141,019,000. Its expenditure target was £141,409,000. According to the Government, it was overspending. I do not accept that. We should not talk about overspending. Its expenditure target was a little over GRE. In 1984–85, the position will be reversed. GRE will be £146,795,910, but the expenditure target will be £145,983,000.
Last year Clywd's target was above the uniform assessment of what a local authority can spend, but this year, because of the Government's formulae, the expenditure target has been cut to below GRE. There is no honesty, fairness or justice in that action. I ask the Government to look at the formulae which provide those expenditure targets, because they do not work, as the example of Clywd shows.
Where does that leave Clwyd? The answer is clear: it must either cut services or increase rates. That is why a report in this morning's Liverpool Daily Post said that the finance committee has decided to increase rates by that large amount. One alternative for Clwyd would be to make cuts in home help provision, meals-on-wheels and staffing in schools. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) knows as well as I do that Clwyd county council has postponed plans to introduce nursery units in Minera in his constituency. Is he opposed to Clwyd county council not introducing plans for nursery units, although the package is in? If he does want those units, I look forward to him joining me in the No Lobby.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) is in the Chamber also. An article in the Liverpool Daily Post of Tuesday 7 February states:
Delyn MP Keith Raffan, has pledged total support in the fight to keep open Trelawnyd village school.
The article reported the hon. Gentleman's words:
It would be quite tragic to close the school.
The article states that he is writing to the Church in Wales and to Clwyd county council.

Mr. Raffan: I do not want to cause the hon. Gentleman too many problems, but he should realise that Trelawnyd village school is a Church in Wales school and not an education authority school.

Dr. Marek: Better still. Public funds are still provided for it. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is saying one thing to his electors in Delyn — that he does not want services cut—and something different to hon. Members. Which is the truth? If the hon. Gentleman were honest and supported the views in the newspaper article, I would hope to welcome him in the No Lobby.

Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be confused. I have given total support to keeping the school open, and in fact I am campaigning for that with the

Church in Wales. The question of education authority aid to the Church for the building has not yet arisen. A meeting is being held tomorrow night. The hon. Gentleman is premature in his remarks and probably inaccurate.

Mr. Coleman: As a Member of the Church in Wales, I must say that those schools in Wales are the concern of the local authority. Local authority money is paid from the education grants for that purpose.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assistance. I thought that was the case, and I am glad to have it confirmed. The hon. Member for Delyn must be clear about this point. Which way will he have it? He has been fighting to keep Chatsworth hospital open. It would be kept open if there were not Government cuts and restrictions which will make the old die earlier. I ask him earnestly to join us in the No Lobby to vote against the report.
Clwyd has been unfairly treated. I hope that the cuts will be defeated. I regret to say that I doubt that Government Members know what I am talking about. We are short of time and there are many Conservative Members who, no doubt, are missing their dinners and their drinking parties. If that is the case, I am sorry, but matters affecting Welsh local authorities are important. We have had an English debate, a Scottish debate and now we have a Welsh debate, and I believe that we should debate Welsh affairs properly. I shall try to be brief.
To be fair to the Secretary of State, he has been in the Chamber throughout the debate. He said that the Government mandate was overwhelmingly endorsed at the last election, but that is not true in Wales. There are still 20 Labour Members representing Welsh constituencies, which means a majority of Labour Members. The rate support grant report will be regarded as yet another disaster for Wales. It is centralist and contemptuous of local democracy. It will make the poor poorer. It shows no appreciation of the immense problems in relation to employment, social aspects, education and housing.
It is a Stalinist policy. Stalin would be proud of such lackies and their outdated and irrelevant dogma. The Government must know that those policies do not represent Socialism, but, more than that, I am convinced that they do not represent traditional Conservatism either. If the Government recognised that, they would withdraw the report and prepare something which would have general agreement and be to the benefit of all the people in Wales.

Mr. Ioan Evans: This wide-ranging debate has taken longer than we expected. Seventeen hon. Members from Wales have taken part. It is interesting to contrast this debate with that on the English rate support grant order, when there was a major rebellion against the Government's proposals by Members representing English constituencies. The Welsh grant is as bad as the English grant. Conservative Members have been critical of certain aspects of the grant, but they will no doubt vote in the Lobby with the Secretary of State.
The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was made not only for the Opposition, but for local government in Wales and the overwhelming wishes of the Welsh people who wish democracy in local government to be maintained.
The most telling point in the speech of the Secretary of State was the reference to Clwyd county council. As was pointed out, Clwyd has an Independent and Tory majority. There is a difference not just between the Labour party and the Tory party in the House and throughout the country, but between Conservative Members of Parliament and Conservative councillors who disagree with the Government's actions. The Secretary of State talked about what the nation can afford. Why can we not afford £10 million more in Wales for the extra people whom local authorities want to employ, when the Government are prepared to spend £2,500 million in the next three years on defence of the Falklands? The people of Wales are beginning to question the Government's sincerity.
The Secretary of State criticised the Welsh authorities for seeking to keep down council rents. Surely we should try to maintain people's living standards and keep down council rents. Presumably the Government will penalise local authorities which do not increase their rates. That is the encouragement that the Government give.
The Secretary of State said that he accepted the comments of the two Welsh local authority associations about GRE. Does he accept and support their outright opposition to the Rates Bill which seeks to undermine Welsh local democracy?
I wish to deal with the Rates Bill, because I believe that it is related to the report. Despite opposition from both sides of the House, the Bill has received a Second Reading and is now in Committee. The Bill deals with local government in Wales, but I was astonished to find that there is not one Welsh Office Minister serving on the Committee. There are Scottish Ministers serving on the Committee to deal with the part of the Bill relating to Scotland, but for the part relating to England and Wales we have only Ministers from the Department of the Environment. When I raised this point in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that the circumstances were difficult because there were eight Committees sitting but only three Welsh Ministers.
When one studies the Committees, one finds that one is about housing, one about Scotland, two come from the Home Office and one relates to defence. I went to see on which Committees the Welsh Ministers are serving. They are not serving on one. They were available and could have served on the Rates Bill Committee. There is worse to come. There are more Welsh Conservative Members than Welsh Opposition Members, but not one Welsh Conservative Member is serving on the Committee. The Conservative party is ducking out of this unpopular constitutional measure, which will fundamentally affect the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Welsh county and district councils.
The Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and the Association of County Councils are opposed to the Bill. The Association of County Councils, which represents 37 of the 39 non-metropolitan counties in England and the eight Welsh county councils, passed a resolution by 95 votes to two calling upon the House to reject the Bill. The Conservative-dominated association overwhelmingly called upon the House to reject the Bill.
On 13 January, the Welsh office of the Association of District Councils, in a letter sent to all Welsh Members so that we would all be aware of its views, said:
In Wales, a new committee of Welsh District Councils was set up in the summer of 1983 under the umbrella of the ADC and

the 37 District Councils in the Principality are represented thereon. Considerable concern has been expressed by our new Welsh Committee to the new proposed rate limitation scheme. As you know the Government has attacked local authorities' spending records in recent years; in fact, the Welsh Districts have increased their estimated expenditure between 1979–80 and 1983–84 by 9 per cent. less than the rise in RPI during the same period".
That is the record of the Welsh authorities. They have sought to meet the Government's target, but they are to be covered by the Rates Bill.
The letter continues:
furthermore, the reduced level of spending has been achieved despite considerable increases in the statutory responsibilities of Welsh local authorities … On 6th January the policy Committee of our new Welsh organisation decided to support wholeheartedly the measures being taken by the ADC in opposing the rate limitation schemes and to draw your attention to the excellent record of Welsh District Councils in containing expenditure over recent years. Members are of the opinion that the schemes are unlikely to be effective in terms of national public expenditure policy and would be extremely difficult to put into practice and require a massive effort in bureaucracy to apply.
It can be seen, therefore, that the eight Welsh county councils and the 37 district councils are opposed to the rate-capping powers that the Government are seeking in the Rates Bill.
It would be interesting to learn what the views of the Secretary of State and his colleagues were about the Bill when the matter was considered in Cabinet—if it was— because we read in The Times that there are so many leaks from the Cabinet these days that many issues are not taken there.
The Opposition are in complete agreement with the Welsh county and district councils in their opposition to the deplorable Rates Bill. It is important to discuss the Rates Bill with this report, because, if the Bill goes through all its stages in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, it will be the determining factor as to how much money will be given to local authorities in the years ahead.
What is the view of the Welsh local authorities about the rate support grant? The Association of County Councils, which represents England and Wales, and, as I said, is Tory-dominated in England, although Wales is well represented by Labour members, said:
the ratepayers face abnormally high increases, serious cuts in services or both.
In a letter to all Welsh Members on 31 January the Welsh office of the Association of District Councils said:
They have instructed me"—
that is the secretary writing on behalf of the association—
to express their grave concern regarding this year's settlement which will result in a cash reduction of £9·9 million or 6·9 per cent. of Block grant to Welsh District Councils in 1984/85 even if they spend at target. This is a very substantial loss of grant equivalent to a 10·5 per cent. reduction in real terms—which in the committee's view is entirely unreasonable and unjust.
Those are the views of the district councils in Wales, some of which are represented by members of the Conservative party. The letter goes on:
When linked with Welsh District Councils' expenditure targets for 1984/85 the position is quite untenable and completely unfair to the Committee's constituent members. Welsh District Councils targets for 1984/85 are in total only £335,000, or 0·15 per cent., above the 1983/84 targets. If they budget at last year's level in real terms (that is the 1983/84 budget +4 per cent.)"—
that is inflation, but it is now 5 per cent.—
they will incur grant penalties of some £7·9m (£6 million more than in the current year) in addition to the basic grant loss of


£9·9m—a total grant loss year on year of £15·9m or 21 per cent. of the Welsh District Council budgeted rate-borne expenditure for 1983–84.
If Conservative Members support this motion, they will be voting against the best interests of the county and district councils in Wales.
We have experienced the attack that Ministers are making on local authorities. However, there are some notable exceptions. One must refer to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who had reservations, and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who spoke against the rate support grant order for England and who, at least if he did not vote against it, was prepared to abstain. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), also abstained. Many Conservative Members voted against the order.
It will be interesting to see whether English Conservative Members have more regard for their authorities then Welsh Conservative Members. We shall see that when we go into the Division Lobbies.
The role of the Thatcherite totalitarian tendency in the Tory party is to attack local authorities. Its members attack local authorities for raising rates, although the record of Welsh local authorities is far better than that of the Tory Government. Can anyone challenge that? Total Government expenditure has increased by 111 per cent. How does the expenditure of central and local government compare? The Tory Government argue that the increase in public expenditure is caused by the activities of local councils. Let us examine the figures. Total Government expenditure has increased by 130 per cent. in six years, whereas local government expenditure has increased by only 77 per cent. The Association of District Councils states:
Bearing in mind the extremely good record of Welsh local authorities and Welsh district councils in particular in reducing their expenditure by 6 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80 whatever the position may be in England the position in Wales is that county and district councils of all political persuasions have done all they can and gone a long way to meet the Government's behest. The reward for Welsh district councils has been the same—if not more so—as that claimed on behalf of English shire counties … that is lower spending and budgeting has brought a reduction in grant-related expenditure figures and reduced spending targets.
What are the comparative figures in cost terms for local authority expenditure? Let us compare the present situation with what happened when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister. On roads and transport, the figure was £167 million in 1978–79, compared with £160 million in 1983–84. On housing, the figure was £150 million in 1978–79; and it is £53 million in 1983–84. On other environmental services, the figure was £241 million in 1978–79, compared with £240 million now. On education and libraries, the figure was £653 million in 1978–79; now it is £633 million. Of all the services, only the social services have increased under this Government, from £101 million to £102 million. However, we all know that expenditure has increased because we have an aging population, with increased statutory duties imposed by the Government, together with the fact that unemployment in Wales has increased, not by the 100 per cent. in some

areas, but by 200 per cent. and 300 per cent., including the Secretary of State's constituency. With a massive increase in unemployment there is bound to be an increase in expenditure on social services. Overall, however, £124 million less is spent now than was spent under the Labour Government.
The new White Paper on 16 February will include the revised figures, but those are the best calculations that can be made at present. At a time of recession and increasing unemployment, instead of the massive increase in local government expenditure in Wales that one might expect, there has been a reduction. On top of that, the draconian powers in the Rates Bill will make the situation far worse in the coming years.
Local authorities should not be punished for the Government's economic failures. Welsh county councils and district councils are criticised unfairly, but they do their best to operate within the guidelines that are laid down by the Government.
The Association of District Councils, in its letter, concludes:
In the Committee's opinion this year's proposed settlement throws in doubt the Government's ability to distribute rate support grant on a fair and sensible basis.
Relations between local authorities and Parliament have been poisoned by this Government's actions. The Government, since they came to power, have changed eight times the method of financing local authorities. That is not the way to make for good local government.
Ministers never tire of saying that local authorities can pick and choose their priorities. That is not true. They have legal duties. For example, local authorities are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their legal commitments under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Some are accused of breaching the law. But who are the law breakers — local authorities that are denied the resources even to meet their legal duties, or the Ministers who starve them of those resources, especially when they are determined to force through a Bill containing draconian powers that will penalise authorities if they raise finance locally to cope with problems, such as those described by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles), relating to meals-on-wheels and other services that have been stopped?
I conclude by saying, first, that, by reducing the proportion of the rate support grant, most authorities, including many of those that have done exactly what the Secretary of State said, will be forced to increase rates, and cuts in services will follow.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has imposed on Welsh local authorities demands for cuts in services and general improvements in efficiency which central Government have manifestly failed to achieve. They are now getting local authorities to reduce spending, although they have utterly failed to do that.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State has today again attacked local authorities in Wales, although those authorities have made real cuts in their expenditure over the past four years.
Fourthly, the Secretary of State has fixed the system of grant assessment to penalise the most hard pressed areas in Wales.
Fifthly, the Government are responsible, to the greatest extent, for the rate increases that have taken place. Now they want to keep rates down, and they are putting a straitjacket on authorities. As a result, authorities have to cut back their services. It is no good Conservative


Members saying that there is no need for those cuts. The evidence is there in all the reports, whether from Tory and Independent authorities, such as Clwyd, or Labour-controlled authorities, such as Mid Glamorgan. They are all compelled to cut back services.
We should remember that the future of the welfare state is at stake. After all, it is the local authorities, in co-operation with the Department of Health and Social Security, which cater for the welfare state. We are disappointed in the Welsh rate support grant report. We urge all Opposition Members and those who are interested in the future of local government in Wales to join us in the Lobby tonight and to vote against the motion.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Fortunately for the House, in my opening speech I anticipated a great many of the arguments that have been advanced tonight and I do not propose to repeat the comments that I made then.

Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help me as a new Member? This is the first time that I have seen a member of the Government open a debate and then finish it. Is that normal practice, or do the Government not have enough people to have two different spokesmen?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): It is quite in order. In this case the Secretary of State does not need the leave of the House to reply to the debate. I have called him to speak and he is wholly in order.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will not repeat what we had to endure in his first speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I have dealt with the point of order. The Secretary of State moved a motion and he is entitled to reply to the debate. I have called him and he now has the Floor.

Mr. Powell: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Whips circulated a document to all Members saying that this debate would conclude at 7 o'clock. There is a lot of pressure, particularly from the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who have their dinner jackets on, and who have been waiting around here since 7.30 pm. The Secretary of State should bear that in mind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the risk of prolonging the debate, I must inform the House that this debate could go on until 11.30 pm, but it looks to me as though it is about to reach its conclusion.

Mr. Edwards: As I observed before I was interrupted, fortunately I anticipated many of the arguments that were advanced in the debate, and I do not intend to repeat the comments that I made in my opening speech.
As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans) has referred to the performance of Welsh local government in expenditure terms in the last few years, I should repeat what I said at the outset. There has been an increase in current spending by Welsh local authorities which has outstripped the increase in the general price level by about 2 per cent. This has led to an offsetting reduction in capital expenditure which has been made up only by the sale of council houses, which has supplemented what would otherwise have been a reduction of capital spending.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) spoke about election promises. I remind him that it was a central promise for which the electors voted that we would control excessive expenditure by local government. I warned in my opening remarks that we would have a long catalogue of horror stories about what local authorities faced in reducing services. My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles), for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) all pointed correctly to the performance of some local authorities which have shown the nonsense of this argument, and to the enormous scope for improved efficiency.
We were asked, for example, by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who opened the debate for the Opposition, to weep over Wrexham and its cat. He made no reference to the point acknowledged by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that the present position of the Wrexham council is accounted for entirely by its persistent refusal to raise council rents. Had Wrexham increased its average council house rent for 1983–84 by the recommended 85p per week to about £10·50, which would still have been about 30 per cent. below the Wales average, instead of refusing to increase it at all, its 1984–85 target would have been within £100,000 or so of its budget for the coming year.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside asked us to weep for Gwynedd, as did the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), but they did not say that the target per head that I have set for Gwynedd is the third highest of the shire counties in England and Wales, and that all the Welsh counties have about the highest GRE per head in England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred to the general position of the district share in relation to that of the counties. That point came out repeatedly during the debate, but the districts are now in the same position for GRE shares as they were in terms of current expenditure in 1981–82, as I pointed out in my opening speech.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that I was declaring war on my Welsh allies and submitting to the bully boys at the Treasury. At the risk of provoking some of my English colleagues—and I am bound to point out that the figures that I am about to quote arise from the fact that Welsh local authorities have come so much closer to the target set by the Government than have English and Scottish authorities—I think I am entitled to point out that all the Welsh counties are in the top eleven of the shire counties in England and Wales in terms of target per head. Powys and Gwynedd are ranked one and three, and the average county target per head in Wales is 13·8 per cent. above the England and Wales average. That hardly looks as if I am declaring war on my Welsh allies.
In the case of districts, the average target per head is 43 per cent. above the England and Wales average, and is even 26 per cent. above the average for the broadly comparable area comprising the north, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside regions of England. The Welsh district with the lowest target per head of the districts in England and Wales is Dinefwr. There are 20 Welsh districts among the top 50 districts in England and Wales in terms of target per head. Because of their past performance, the truth is that we have been able to give benefits to the Welsh local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend spoke from his long experience in local government of the economies that can be made, and made absolute nonsense of the stories of the disintegration of local government. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) referred to the cutback in improvement grants, but what we have had is an enormous increase in expenditure on local authority improvement grants over the last two or three years, a total outturn in 1983–84 of £118 million, compared with £31 million and £54 million in the two previous years. After that enormous increase in expenditure, and the tremendous drive that we have had to improve the condition of our housing stock, it is not at all surprising that we are not able to maintain expenditure at that very high level, but there are still substantial sums available next year. There is nothing to stop local authorities from authorising new expenditure now if payments are held over until after 1 April.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) said that we should reward good housekeeping. It is for precisely that reason that we are applying severe targets to the very high spenders and protecting those that spend within targets. As he has in the past, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) spoke about sparsity. I must tell him, as I told him before, that we are using the formulae agreed with the associations. We have looked at the matter several times. We are now awaiting a major study by the Association of County Councils on this issue, and when we have the outcome of that study we shall be prepared to look at the matter again.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon — I have already referred to the position of Gwynedd in terms of its relative situation — referred to grant withholding and the consequences of clawback, or close ending. Close ending is the process of ensuring that the total amount of grant claimed does not exceed the total available before clawback. It is self-evident that if all authorities spend at target the amount of grant claimed equals the amount available, and that if certain authorities exceed their targets they are directly responsible for the excess claim on resources. For that reason, since 1982–83 I have ensured that only those exceeding their targets are subject to close ending. This arrangement has been of immense value to target achievers, because it means that they do not suffer as a result of the actions of the high spenders, and their rates are lower as a consequence.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the Arfon borough council. I agree that its target is tough, but by any objective standards it is a generous target. In terms of target per head it is 4·5 per cent. above the Welsh average. More revealingly it is 50 per cent. above the shire district average for England and Wales. If that is not enough to convince people of the reasonableness of the resources allocated, its target is some 8 per cent. higher even than its GRE.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly and others referred to the situation in Mid-Glamorgan. The problem in Mid-Glamorgan stems from the fact that, having overspent its 1983–84 target by £7 million, increasing its revenue spending by even a modest amount results in a significant overspend in 1984–85. Had the county decided to spend at target in 1984–85, we estimate that it need not have increased its precept at all in the coming year. The saving

to the ratepayer would amount to about £9 million and that is equivalent to about £22 per household, or about £30 per employee in manufacturing.
A further point which I think I am entitled to draw to the attention of the House is that South Glamorgan, to which I referred in opening, is resolved to spend at target which enables it to spend £361 per head. Mid-Glamorgan's target would enable it to spend £383 per head — 6 per cent. more than South Glamorgan. It is on course to exceed even that figure by about 3 per cent., making its spend £32 per head, or 9 per cent., higher than South Glamorgan's spend. It is hard to see how that can be justified.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to the non-domestic and domestic share. There are major limitations on authorities' accountability to their ratepayers. In 1983–84, about 70 per cent. of Welsh local authorities' net revenue expenditure was met by the national taxpayer, not the ratepayer. In Wales, only 14 per cent. of net rate revenue expenditure is financed by domestic rates before rebates. It is not surprising, therefore, that industry believes that there is no effective democratic control over local authority expenditure.
I was asked about the possibility of rate capping in Clwyd. If the Clwyd authority persists in the policies described today, there is a serious danger that it will be subjected to rate capping.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) spoke about the problems in his area. Swansea's target per head at £91 exceeds the Wales average by 18 per cent. and the English shire district average by a massive 70 per cent. That is hardly evidence of grossly inadequate resources.
I spoke earlier about the reward that we are giving to Welsh local authorities for their restraint and cuts in expenditure relative to cuts in England and Scotland. Welsh local authorities are benefiting from high GREs, from high targets and from substantial additional capital expenditure as a direct result of their performance in meeting our earlier objectives. Notwithstanding the fall in capital activity next year, capital provision per head will still be about 50 per cent. higher in Wales than it is in England.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred at length to the possibility of rate capping. I would rather offer a carrot than a stick. I hope that the performance by Welsh authorities will enable us to continue giving them relatively more than authorities in England and Scotland which have not met Government objectives. Above all, I hope that Welsh local authorities will recognise the services that they can render to industry and to their ratepayers by holding down the cost of local government and therefore the rate demands on their ratepayers.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 170.

Division No. 157]
[8.44 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Tom
Bendall, Vivian


Ashby, David
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)


Aspinwall, Jack
Benyon, William


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Berry, Sir Anthony






Bevan, David Gilroy
Grist, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Ground, Patrick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Harris, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Harvey, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hayes, J.


Browne, John
Hayward, Robert


Bruinvels, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Heddle, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Barry


Burt, Alistair
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Hickmet, Richard


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hirst, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hooson, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dicks, T.
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Robert
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knowles, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knox, David


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Farr, John
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Latham, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fox, Marcus
Lord, Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McCrindle, Robert


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, John


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Galley, Roy
Maclean, David John.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Gow, Ian
Maude, Francis


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mellor, David


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Miscampbell, Norman





Moore, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Needham, Richard
Stewart. Allan (Eastwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Normanton, Tom
Stokes, John


Norris, Steven
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, John (Harrow W)
Sumberg, David


Parris, Matthew
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Patten, John (Oxford)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Terlezki, Stefan


Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Powley, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Raffan, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trippier, David


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Trotter, Neville


Roe, Mrs Marion
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rost, Peter
Waddington, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ryder, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wall, Sir Patrick


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watson, John


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sims, Roger
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wheeler, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitfield, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, D.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Archy Hamilton.


Steen, Anthony



NOES


Abse, Leo
Clay, Robert


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Alton, David
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cowans, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Craigen, J. M.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Crowther, Stan


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Dixon, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dormand, Jack


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fatchett, Derek


Cartwright, John
Faulds, Andrew


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Clarke, Thomas
Fisher, Mark






Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millen, Rt Hon Bruce


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, W. E.
Nellist, David


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman
Park, George


Golding, John
Patchett, Terry


Gourlay, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Penhaligon, David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pike, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Prescott, John


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Radice, Giles


Haynes, Frank
Randall, Stuart


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Redmond, M.


Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Home Robertson, John
Robertson, George


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Geraint
Rooker, J. W.


Hoyle, Douglas
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ryman, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheerman, Barry


John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Snape, Peter


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leighton, Ronald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Litherland, Robert
Tinn, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Torney, Tom


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wainwright, R.


Loyden, Edward
Wallace, James


McCusker, Harold
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wareing, Robert


McKelvey, William
Weetch, Ken


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Welsh, Michael


Maclennan, Robert
White, James


McTaggart, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Maginnis, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Gordon


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Woodall, Alec


Martin, Michael



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. John McWilliam and


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. John MacKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1984–85, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.

Sea Fisheries

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1883), dated 19th December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with this motion the following motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Herring and White Fish (Specified Manx Waters) Licensing (Variation) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1879), dated 19th December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sea Fish Licensing (Variation) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1881), dated 19th December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sea Fishing (Specified Western Waters) (Restrictions on Landings) (Variation) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 92), dated 1st February 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st February, be annulled.

Mr. MacGregor: As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will be for the convenience of the House to take all the motions together.
I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to explore the details of our policy on these matters which were announced to the House in written answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on 20 December and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) on 3 February. To some extent, the matters we are debating are very technical. In another sense, what they are doing is fitting into place another important part of the jigsaw which in its totality adds up to an important new longer-term deal for the fishing industry.
It has been an arduous process putting it all together. Indeed, some pessimists thought that it would never happen, but it is now nearly all in place. Therefore, I should like first to set this part of the Government's policy for the fishing industry in its wider context by considering the general background. I hope I may be permitted to do so, so that the House can appreciate how it all fits in. The policy has, of course, to be worked out in the context of the Community's common fisheries policy, which was agreed last year and which has established the broad framework within which our industry can now plan for a generation ahead. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of an effective common fisheries policy for our industry.
Many said that it would never work, as we struggled to reach agreement on a Community-wide basis, but it is working. We always said that if only we could get final agreement on the herring issue, the totality of the common fisheries policy would be in place and would make it much easier to reach agreement in future years. The Council on 31 January was able, much to the surprise of some people, to set total allowable catches and quotas for 1984. Fixing these key figures so early in the year was a major achievement. It was just what the industry wanted and, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) acknowledged in reply to my right hon. Friend's statement reporting the meeting to the House, it


represents a movement towards stability of which the fishing fleet in general approves". — [Official Report, 1 February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 277.]
What we can all agree upon is the importance of providing our fishermen with as secure as possible a base on which to plan. Without that, the measures we are debating tonight could not work and would not be anything like so relevant.
There are three main strands to the policy. The first is the agreement to which I have just referred on how stocks should be shared within the Community. That we have done. The second is that taking full advantage of the fishing opportunities now available to our fleet also means improved marketing. We are working closely with the Sea Fish Industry Authority as it develops its marketing programme. The third strand is that we need to encourage the industry to restructure and modernise the fleet so that it can operate effectively and efficiently in the years ahead; we must help to develop the framework within which it can do so. It is that part of the final strand that we are debating tonight.
The detailed arrangements for measures to encourage a restructuring of the fleet, agreed in the Council of Ministers on 4 October, have provided one of the means by which to encourage the industry in this direction. The key word here is "encourage".
I should like to stress straight away the Government's view that such adaptation as is appropriate must come about through the individual decisions of vessel owners. It cannot be the Government's role to try to decide and to dictate the precise shape of the fleet—to say that we need X freezer trawlers, Y pursers, Z anchor seiners of which so many should fish for cod from this port, so many for mackerel and herring from that port and so on. No Government should seek to take on the task of planning at that sort of level, and, if they did, they would be doomed to failure.
Although the industry must accept many controls—the need for those is, I believe, widely understood—the essential decisions about whether to leave the industry or to stay, about whether to invest in a new boat or to improve an existing one, must remain with the individual firm or fisherman. That said, there is general recognition that there are vessels in the fleet which cannot operate economically under current conditions. There is also general recognition that there is surplus capacity in some sectors.
It is widely accepted that the industry will need to adapt if it is to operate effectively within the parameters of the common fisheries policy and the necessary management measures following from it, and that Government do have a role in assisting the industry in its process of adaptation.
That is why we took rapid action to prepare and publish the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme which is before the House today. We were determined that our industry should have the option of being able to take full and speedy advantage of the new financial measures which the Council of Ministers' had agreed. Many hon. Members have pressed me on this point, and I believe that we responded rapidly. I know that our speed in this matter was widely appreciated. Indeed, we were the first country in the Community to act and to take advantage of the Council of Ministers' decision.
These measures form part of a total policy for the industry which seeks to do three things—to encourage the modernisation of the fleet; to reduce capacity, either

permanently or temporarily where this is necessary; and to help the industry to investigate new fishing opportunities.
Let me deal with grants to encourage investment in building and improving fishing vessels. I must make it clear that these grants are not provided for in the scheme which is the immediate subject of the debate, but they form a key element in the total package and it would be right, therefore, to spend just a minute on them.
There are two grant schemes. Both are already open. First, there is our national scheme of grants and loans which is administered by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. We have made £45 million available for this scheme over the next three financial years. All this will come from the United Kingdom Exchequer.
Secondly, there is the Community grant scheme which is administered by the Commission and fully funded by the Community. On precedents, the scheme agreed last October for new buildings, improvements and modernisation could bring about £13 million into our fishing industry. We greatly hope that our industry will take full advantage of this scheme to invest in developing a modern, efficient fleet well adapted to making best use of the fishing opportunities available to it.
I am pleased to remind the House that priority under the Community scheme will go to the replacement of vessels over 12 years old. This is very much our priority for the national fleet. But there is a need to promote the improvement of the structure of the fleet in other ways, and this is the purpose of the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme. The scheme provides for four grants for decommissioning, laying up vessels, exploratory voyages and joint ventures.
The aim of the decommissioning grants is to assist the process of necessary structural change by encouraging the owners of vessels which for one reason or another are not viable in current circumstances to remove these vessels permanently from the fishing fleet. The payment will be £400 per gross registered tonne of the vessel.
The expected reduction in the number of vessels in the fleet will be of real value to the rest of the fleet, particularly where the vessels which are decommissioned would otherwise have been active in those fisheries where capacity has exceeded our fishing opportunities. The relevance and importance of this scheme is readily illustrated by the fact that we have already received over 70 applications for aid totalling £10 million.
Laying-up grants will be available for owners who fish their vessels for fewer days than in the past. The payment will be based on the cost or insured value of the vessel and will depend on how much the vessel owner is prepared to reduce his time spent at sea.
This scheme has also attracted considerable interest and is potentially an important source of help for vessels which cannot currently be fully utilised but which could become viable if, as we hope, conservation measures allow total allowable catches to be increased.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has regularly pressed me about operating aid. Aid of the sort that the hon. Gentleman envisages would be immediately declared illegal within the Community, but in relation to laying-up grants the scheme will greatly help the cash flow of some fishermen. It is more than just a capital grant scheme, as it will help cash flow.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister tell us about the geographical distribution of applications? It is crucial that viable fishing centres should be kept in being. If there is a gadarene rush to apply for laying-up grants in a town such as Grimsby, which will take us below the optimum usage of the port and its facilities, that might have a disastrous effect on fishing there.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby seeks operating aid, and help with cash flow, but when it is offered he immediately throws it back in my face.
I do not have precise details of the geographical distribution, but, if I can get them before the end of the debate, I shall try to find an opportunity to give them to him. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier about the importance of not sitting in Westminster or Whitehall trying to plan how fishermen or port authorities go about their business.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: He is talking about 108 redundant trawlermen, so we shall be wasting our time.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that we shall be wasting our time. We are bound to get it wrong. We can, however, give incentives and help to the commercial sector to help it take the decisions that are in its best interests.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neil: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he leaves the question of operating aid and the legal impediment to offering such a scheme to our fishermen, can the Minister say what has happened to the French fuel support system. What stage has the case reached in the European Court of Justice? Axe we doing anything effective to prevent such a subsidy of the French fleet?

Mr. MacGregor: We are straying from the point somewhat, which was perhaps my fault. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that subsidy has been declared illegal. We are pursuing with the Commission what steps it should take to end it. The Commission has to act in cases of illegal national aids.
The third part of the financial assistance scheme deals with grants for exploratory voyages. Those will be available for vessels of 24 metres and longer, and are designed to make up the expected financial deficit of an approved voyage. They will be available for approved projects within and outside the Community's 200-mile fishing limit.
Grants will also be available for joint ventures involving the transfer of vessels to fish in waters off west Africa and in the Mediterranean basin. The grant will vary with the vessel's tonnage and the time that it is away from Community waters.

Sir Patrick Wall: Does that include the Falkland Islands?

Mr. MacGregor: The grants for joint ventures do not include the Falkland Islands. The waters where they are available were agreed after long discussions between the member states, before I joined the Council of Minsters. I understand that, as is so often the case in these matters, the areas finally agreed upon were in a compromise package. However, grants for exploratory voyages could

be made available for voyages to the Falklands. The third category of the scheme is most relevant to my hon. Friend's question.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I am anxious to enable as many right hon. and hon. Members to speak in the debate as possible, which is becoming truncated. I shall endeavour to deal with all the points at the end of the debate.
I have dealt briefly with the last two sections: the grants for exploratory voyages and for joint ventures. Some details of the laying-up and decommissioning grants are spelled out in the statutory instrument. More details of the grants for exploratory voyages and for joint ventures are in the Community regulations relating to them. Explanatory leaflets giving details of all of the schemes have been issued for the fishing industry's use.
The terms of all four grants covered by the statutory instrument generally reflect the terms of Community legislation, which enables the Government to reclaim from Community funds 50 per cent. of payments made. There are, however, two exceptions, both of which were made at the request of the fishing industry.
Both the decommissioning and laying-up grants will be available for vessels down to 10 metres in length, rather than the 12 metres for decommissioning grants and 18 metres for laying-up grants which are the lower limits in the Community legislation. For laying-up grants, the Community age limit does not apply. Payments for smaller and older vessels will be financed completely from national funds. I received a number of deputations from the fishing industry, which pressed us to make national changes to suit our national fleets. I am happy to say that we have been able to do so.
The grants provided for by the statutory instrument will be open for applications until 1986. Financial provision of £27·1 million is being sought for them, including £4 million for which provision has already been obtained and agreed by the House to cover payments of decommissioning grants in the current financial year. As the House will recall, we rushed that measure through early on at the time of Supplementary Estimates to ensure that we had the provision for payment in the first three months of this financial year.
If the full provision is taken up as provided in our estimates, about £12 million should be payable from the Community. In total, that means that the aid being given to the fishing industry for vessels over the next three years will amount to about £85·6 million of which about £25 million will come from the Community. That is a substantial sum to enable the fishing industry to restructure itself.
As I have explained, the purpose of the grants is to obtain improvements in the structure of the fleet. To protect the benefits achieved by the funds, particularly as regards the total size of the fleet, we must exercise certain controls.
I refer now to the licensing orders that are the subject of the prayers that we are also debating tonight.
The main purpose of the orders is to extend our well-established licensing system to include vessels of 10 metres or more registered length. Until now vessels of below 40ft were exempt from the controls that are needed for quota management. The change brings our licensing


arrangements into line with the new requirements to complete log books and landing returns under the the Community's control regulation, which will apply to all vessels of 10 metres or more.
I need not remind the House that we were constantly urged, and were happy to be urged, to implement the Community's inspectorate and control system. I am sure that that aspect of the orders will be well understood by the House.
I should say something about the principle of controls. It is very much against my general political and economic philosophy to seek to introduce new controls. I seek to remove controls wherever possible and not to impose new ones. Therefore, I need strong justification for even the modest extension of controls that we propose.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Why?

Mr. MacGregor: I am saying that because I strongly believe it. Therefore, I personally need strong justification for even the modest extension of controls that we are proposing. I think that that justification is there.
We are dealing not with a free market, where the opportunities are limited only by meeting the needs of the consumer. In fish, there is a genuine international conservation problem. Hence, we have the total allowable catches and quotas, and we need the controls through the licensing system.
The most significant development in licensing policy, however, is our decision to introduce some new restrictions in the issue of licences. I should like to describe to the House the main features of the new arrangements and why we think that they are necessary.
I refer first to the controls. The main features of the new arrangements that came into effect on 3 February are as follows. Our starting point was to make a distinction between what we have called "pressure stocks" and "non-pressure" stocks. "Pressure stocks" are those where national catch quotas may be expected to be fully taken up by the national fleet. They include the main pelagic species and various important white fish stocks. A detailed list of those stocks was published on 3 February.
In general, our intention is to use the licensing scheme to restrict the numbers of British registered fishing vessels of a registered length of 10 metres or more which are authorised to fish for these pressure stocks. We are seeking to achieve this by limiting the right to fish these stocks to vessels which already hold licences to take one or more of them or can show a record of fishing for one or more of them before 3 February.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is not happy about the pressure stocks licensing system that he is proposing, as it believes that it is unrealistic and will be unworkable? The federation would prefer the licensing system that it has suggested. May we have an assurance that the federation's representations in relation to pressure stocks will be considered?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall say more about that later. I assure my hon. Friend that we consulted widely with the industry, including the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, before coming to conclusions on the licensing system. There are, as he will know, differences of view—in some cases substantial—in the fishing industry, and I hope to show that we have tried to seek a system which

we think meets our requirements and which is the best balance between the various representations that we have received. I shall comment later on the question of future representations.
As I said, we are seeking to achieve the objective that I outlined by limiting the right to fish these stocks to vessels which already hold licences to take one or more of them or can show a record of fishing for one or more of them before 3 February. Licences may be transferred either with the licensed vessel or from one vessel to another by the person holding them. Licences will not, however, be transferable—and this is important—from a vessel which is decommissioned with grant. Nor may licences for a vessel of a registered length less than 40ft be transferred to a vessel of a registered length greater than 40ft. Further details were set out in the written answer given on 3 February in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre.
Inevitably, these new arrangements sound complex. But I assure the House that we have tried to keep the new system as simple, as straightforward and as flexible as possible. That was one of our main reasons for building these new arrangements on to the licensing arrangements that we must have, anyway, to manage quotas. It is no part of my philosophy to impose controls for control's sake. These new controls are intended to meet a real need.
Our aim in introducing them is straightforward, and I believe the fishing industry understands it. As I have tried to emphasise throughout my speech, the overall aim must be to achieve a better balance between fishing capacity and our fishing opportunities. This is right for the industry because it supports our efforts to improve conservation and because of the economic benefits that it should bring. We are seeking to encourage the removal of surplus or uneconomic vessels from the fleet by providing grants.
But this, by itself, is not enough. It is important to ensure that the benefits which should follow from reducing the number of vessels in the fleet are protected. In other words, if in certain parts of the industry there have been too many boats trying to make a living from the stocks available for them all to be viable, and if some are now induced to leave, it would be foolish to allow them simply to be replaced. That would achieve nothing.
Equally, for the reasons that I have given, there are difficulties at this crucial transitional stage in allowing a totally uncontrolled development of new capacity. While, therefore, we must respect the needs of those already in the industry, we need new controls if our basic objective is to be achieved. We have chosen to exercise this control where it is most relevant by concentrating on access to the so-called "pressure stocks". I emphasise that we envisage no new controls over access to non-pressure stocks where it must be in the national interest and that of the industry not to place any unnecessary barriers in the way of those wishing to exploit them.
I realise that there are some—and their voices have been represented tonight—who would have liked us to go further and faster towards a fully comprehensive system of restrictive licensing. Others urge us to manage the industry with the lightest possible hand. I believe that we have struck an appropriate balance, at what is a period of transition, for our industry. And, because this is a period of transition, we will need to keep a very close eye on how matters develop. That is why we have already said that we will want to review the licensing system with the industry at the end of 1986.
The industry will be given every opportunity to comment on how the exercise is working out, and it is free to make representations to my right hon. Friend and me in due course. I say "in due course" because I hope that it will not come immediately from day one. We must have a reasonable time to see how it is working. However, the industry is free to make representations in due course if it feels that especially pressing points about the working of the arrangements in practice need to be brought to our attention.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an important part of a new deal for the fishing industry for its longer-term future. I believe that we have the balance in regard to licensing right and I commend the measures to the House.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate these statutory instruments. I believe that I speak for most right hon. and hon. Members when I say that it is something of a surprise to have such an opportunity so early in the year. To that extent we are thankful for small mercies.
It is only two months since we last debated fishing. I do not think that anyone who attended that debate believed that we would reach this stage so quickly. It is gratifying to know that the Government are taking advantage of the opportunities and that we are the first country to make real steps to encourage the modernisation of our fleet, to encourage it to have a more realistic capacity and, as the Minister said, to investigate the new opportunities.
It will be seen from the Order Paper that the Opposition wish to pray against three of the orders, although it is not our intention to divide the House tonight. We wish to consider them as a package, as they have been presented by the Government. We are not completely happy with everything. It would be a strange and probably a sad day for the House if an Opposition were satisfied with everything that the Government presented. I should like to point to what the Opposition regard as gaps or omissions in an equally important part of the common fisheries policy. The Minister has fairly outlined the CFP's objective. One of our gravest anxieties concerns the fact that the restructuring of the fleet has implications for the men who go to sea, as well as for the vessels in which they go to sea. Apart from the consumer, they are the major consideration for the Opposition.
Extension of the licensing provisions to cover boats of more than 10 m but less than 40 m in length has removed a loophole. There used to be instances of powerful boats of just less than 40 ft in length. That anomaly has now been removed. We hope that the ingenuity of boat builders will not be directed towards designing and constructing boats of 9·99 m in length which are so powerful as to match their predecessors. Nevertheless, we welcome the extension of the licensing provisions. It is a useful tidying up of the regulations.
The Opposition have some misgivings about Statutory Instrument No. 1883. We accept that the regulations to which it relates lie at the heart of the Common Market's fisheries policy. However, there is a contradiction in that, while we are curbing fishing effort, we are also offering money for construction. Part of the give and take approach is that, while it is necessary to reduce capacity in some

areas, we must meet deficiencies in others. We recognise that the £45 million to construct and modernise the fishing fleet is welcome.
As regards the laying-up grants, it has been pointed out to us, on the figure of 45 days in three previous years, that, although this was designed for our little pelagic fishermen, it is possible that, with the resumption of North sea herring fishing, which will expand the opportunities for herring fishing, the situation has changed somewhat because it may well be that those who catch white fish will benefit more, since the quotas are more attractive to them. We are conscious of the fact that the attractions of the scheme may in some areas be limited. It has been pointed out to us, by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, for example, that a boat which is valued at £200,000 for insurance purposes would be entitled to about £4,320 for laying-up for 45 days — that is to say, less than £100 a per day. The fishermen's organisation has made the point that perhaps a shorter laying-up period linked to higher payments might have been more attractive to those who have boats in this category.
I realise that this would involve more money, but it may well be that this aspect of the package will not be as attractive as it appears at the outset. Although I appreciate that the Minister does not wish to keep coming back to the House for minor adjustments and amendments, I hope that his strictures on change are not too severe and that experience will provide us with opportunities for some fine tuning of the scheme. At any rate, we are giving notice that at least one part of the British fleet — the Scottish element—is giving warning.
As regards the decommissioning grants, it has been said that the £400 per tonne will not necessarily discourage a viable boat from fishing. The £20,000 that would be paid for a 50-tonne boat, regardless of age, would not be a particularly attractive proposition to some of the Scottish vessels which are around 50 tonnes, if a boat is still viable and if the owner wants to give it up.
These fears are being expressed. They may be groundless. It is appropriate that we raise the question at this time. It has been suggested that part of the speed with which these measures have been brought before us takes account of the fact that some of the English distant water fleet have had such a poor year in 1983 that if the qualifying year were taken as 1983 rather than 1982 they might not be eligible for some of the available funds. This may be a churlish suggestion, but I make the point. We are not objecting to it, but there are often reasons which are not explicit.
Whoever gets the money, we on the Opposition Benches are equally concerned about what is done with it. We are anxious that the money given to those in the fishing industry who have been encouraged to give up be spent in the areas in which the businesses were formerly carried on, that as far as possible—we know that it is very difficult to frame regulations in this way—if new businesses are to be started, they can be in the areas suffering the social damage that the rundown in the fishing industry is causing at the present time.
Paragraph 4 of the discussion document on the structure and management of the United Kingdom fishing fleet published on 30 March last year stated:
Organisations will wish to consider the weight to be given to, perhaps conflicting, factors such as seeking to maximise efficiency of operation and"—


this is one of the most important lines of that document, to which the Government have given inadequate weight—
the need to seek continuity of supply and maintaining the social structures of local communities.
The close-knit nature of fishing communities and their dependence on fishing makes it more important for the Government seriously to consider ensuring that the funds provided to encourage people to give up fishing should be used to help those communities, which are now under tremendous strain.
The Opposition are equally aware that, although that must be the Government's approach, a considerable amount of money is being made available. The Fishing News of 13 January says that £400 per gross tonne will be received by British United Trawlers, making a total of about £2·8 million. That figure is only a conservative estimate when one takes into account the scrap value of the freezers. It represents not only the scrap value, but the jobs of 108 men, most of whom have given long service to British United Trawlers. They have probably worked for no other employer, and have sailed in only a few other vessels, yet their redundancy payments will be as nothing compared with the amount paid to the owners.
I realise that this matter is a political hot potato which no Department is prepared to hold for any period. In a letter of 30 January to the Minister of State at the Department of Employment, Mr. John Connolly, the national secretary of the docks, waterways and fishing group of the Transport and General Workers Union, appealed on behalf of his men and sought
further consideration by your Department for making special provision for fishermen who will find themselves unemployed as a result
of the restructuring of the United Kingdom fleet.
The letter was addressed to the Department of Employment, which one would have assumed to be the lead Department in matters of redundancy. The Minister of State replied that the decommissioning grants paid from EC funds should go to redundant fishermen, and he said:
As the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility for questions arising from the restructuring of the fishing industry, I am passing your letter to
the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That letter was written on 31 January; given the Ministry's preoccupation with these orders and the speed with which it has moved, it may be a little premature to ask whether the letter has been actively considered.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman has made considerable comment about trawlers. I am sure that he will be aware that for many years the trawler fleet, because of the loss of the distant waters, has not been able to fish effectively. It is the one part of the fishing fleet which has not had an opportunity to progress. Surely he will accept that the greatest beneficiaries of the restructuring of the fleet are the inshore and middle-water fleets.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was talking about unemployed trawlermen.

Mr. McQuarrie: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is talking from a sedentary position on behalf of the Grimsby trawler fleet, he must listen more carefully. He obviously lacks knowledge, despite his television interviews. With the greatest regret, the trawler fleet is really non-existent now. The greatest beneficiaries

of the restructuring are the middle and inshore fleets, and we must gear ourselves to thinking about those sectors of the industry.

Dr. Godman: What about the 108 men to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was referring?

Mr. O'Neill: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening to me. Since the previous debate on this topic, the announcements and the period of preparation to give legislative effect to what we discussed and agreed — as far as I can remember, the hon. Gentleman was not present when the previous debate on this issue took place, when we discussed principle—there has been a significant redundancy, which is a useful example of the social dimensions of the restructuring of the fleet. That has happened within seven weeks.
It would matter little to me whether the redundancy had occurred in the inshore or middle distance fleets or the trawler fleet. The problem is exactly the same no matter which group of fishermen is affected. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great concern for the fishermen in his constituency, but it does him little good to adopt the attitude that if it is not for his own constituents it does not matter and it should not concern the House.
Perhaps I am being unkind to the hon. Gentleman by drawing that conclusion, but the men who are being made redundant are entitled to a fair crack of the whip. They are entitled to money that is available from Europe if the Government get up from their backside and do something about it. We know who is responsible within Government; we know where the buck effectively stops. We now want the Department that is responsible to take the necessary action to provide the men with justice and fairness in their employment arrangements.
This is not an example of Grimsby and Hull against the north-east or south-west. We are discussing a problem which confronts the entire British fishing fleet. That is why we are reluctant to give full backing to the package, for we recognise that there are gaps in it. If the Government are prepared to do something about that, so much the better, but we want them to do it sooner rather than later. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) understands that I am not making a special plea for any one group. The redundancy arrangements, severance payments or pension arrangements that we are discussing should be applied across the entire fishing fleet, and I cannot make that point too forcibly. We have a reasonably attractive package for vessel owners — it could always be better and I am sure that that will be argued—but there is a glaring omission for the men, for whom no provision has been made.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The compensation to be paid can be obviated by the Minister's view that a vessel is unfit. I may have read the order with insufficient care, but I cannot find a procedure which, when the Minister—which means a surveyor—regards a vessel as unfit, will enable the owner to appeal against the decision. When the hon. Gentleman says that there is one glaring omission, I am bound to wonder whether he has noticed another one.

Mr. O'Neill: I accept the hon. Gentleman's close scrutiny of the scheme. I was endeavouring to point out that there was a major omission in respect of the social


dimension in which the Government have a clear responsibility. The discussion document of 30 March 1983 refers to that omission. With respect, my point is more substantive than the hon. Gentleman's, although his was not insignificant. We want action to ensure that there are appropriate severance and redundancy payments. If one of my hon. Friends is fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will go into more detail.
The redundancy payments for those 108 men amount to about £500 for 20 years' service, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an especially generous offer. It is not generous when set against the payments made through the EEC for steel workers, coal miners and the like. The EEC does not have a bottomless pot of money, but considerable provision can be made, when appropriate, for some groups in the Community. If provision can be made for the coal mining and steelworking areas, which are devastated by unemployment, there should be provision for those 108 men.
This is not simply a matter of giving money for individuals, but there ought to be schemes similar to those provided by, for example, British Steel to support the creation of new enterprises. Provision should be made regardless of the regional funding the Government eventually provide. A review of regional policy is being conducted, but it should be conducted separately. We will not accept any feeble excuse from the Minister that the Government cannot introduce this scheme because it would be at variance with the hitherto undisclosed objectives of the Government's regional policy.
This is not an especially happy time for the fishing industry. Some would say that it is one stage removed from its death throes, but I am not so pessimistic. There is uncertainty in the industry, and I was conscious, during the last debate on this subject, that that uncertainty was manifested in the anxieties about mackerel fishing in the south-west. Statements were made that certain groups should not be allowed to fish in that region. It is perhaps a sign of hope that, since then, the South Western Fish Producer Organisation has made it clear that it has never wanted a complete ban on trawling for mackerel, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) suggested in the previous debate. The organisation says that it is opening a dialogue with the Scottish Pelagic Fishermens Association, so there are no longer the difficulties of communication and the uncertainties that were prevalent just six or seven weeks ago.
Mr. Williams, of the South Western Fish Producer Organisation, has made a statement on this subject. He said that the hon. Member, who is a Member of this House and of the European Assembly,
is advocating a complete ban on trawling for mackerel
and that the South Western Fish Producer Organisation cannot agree with that and expect the Department to allow fishing to continue under the present box terms. That may be a change of heart, but I find it encouraging.

Mr. David Harris: The Cornish fishermen for whom I speak have never said that they want a ban against one section on a territorial basis. They are interested in safeguarding the stocks, be they fished by Cornishmen, Devonians or Scots. I have not seen the letter that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I should have hoped that Mr. Williams, whom I know well, would have had the

courtesy to send me a copy, as he has mentioned me. The views expressed in that letter are not the views of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation.

Mr. O'Neill: I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's opt-out on behalf of Cornwall. One of the biggest bones of contention in the last debate was the ban. The disagreement was not between both sides of the House because the Opposition stepped back from the issue, but I know that there was considerable anxiety in the northeast of Scotland. The South Western Fish Producer Organisation, which may well be rather larger and more representative than the one with which the hon. Gentleman deals, is clearly of a different mind and has taken the trouble to express its view.
Perhaps the practical side of the common fisheries policy is beginning to provide stability in the industry and the self-confidence that will arise out of that stability. The Opposition are not completely starry-eyed about the scheme. We are, perhaps, a little further away from it than the Minister and can therefore look at it more dispassionately, although we recognise that advances are being made.
The Opposition do not think that bans and proscription are the best way to deal with fishing within the United Kingdom by United Kingdom fishermen. We hope that the progress, to which the Minister has referred, on licensing and control of United Kingdom vessels will proceed. We hope also that the licensing arrangements will quickly apply to other member states within the Community, and that they will apply the same rigour and vigour to their enforcement. We often find that it is the British that abide by the rules first and most effectively, to the disadvantage of our activities.
While we will not divide the House, we give only qualified support to the Minister's efforts and proposals. We should like him to make it clear to his European colleagues that we will not stand idly by if we are being disadvantaged, and we will not be frightened to intervene. The Minister seemed to be eschewing intervention in a way that suggested that he was perhaps protesting too much.
Effective and relevant intervention has just as much a place in fishing as in any other part of the economy. We recognise that when people go hunting for fish—that is still the basic activity of fishermen; they are fundamentally hunters no matter how much we try to control stocks—within the United Kingdom, they are entitled to be protected and not disadvantaged. More important, they need to be assured that their livelihood outwith the fishing industry will be at least as good as it was within the fishing industry, and that the provision that redundant steel and coal workers get from the Common Market can be extended to fishermen so that they are entitled to severance and redundancy pay, pension arrangements and facilities for retraining.
The new projects and schemes that the Minister talks about are as nothing without adequate backup and training facilities for the fishing industry. The Minister only hinted at that in his remarks, and he will need to come back to the House before too long with additional help to the industry, to fulfil the Government's social and economic obligations. The Government will not receive our total support for the common fisheries policy until the Minister can fulfil the social dimensions of the common fisheries policy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I understand that it was hoped that this debate would start earlier than it did. It may help if I say that 10 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have intimated their wish to take part, and I understand that the Front Bench spokesman will seek to wind up the debate at 11.10 pm, and of course it ends at 11.30 pm. Perhaps that will be borne in mind.

Sir Walter Clegg: I shall take notice Mr. Speaker, of what you said about the number of speakers in this debate.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). What he said about the social aspect of redundant fishermen appeals to me very much. It is a theme that I have pursued in the House on previous occasions. As the hon. Member for Greater Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is here — Great Grimsby, I am sorry; that is going too far—may I tell him that my firm of solicitors is helping fishermen to present their claims to the Minister. If I may so point out to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, we do not only do conveyancing.
My sympathy is with the hon. Member for Clackmannan, because these orders are a matter for owners of vessels. There is no provision in them—nor could there be—for men who have lost their livelihoods through changes in the system of fishing, something that was not their responsibility. As the hon. Gentleman said, the coal and steel communities in Europe pay large sums for redundancy to reduce capacity, and it is a matter to which the Government should give a great deal of thought.
This is one of the most amicable fisheries debates that I can remember. If I may say so, we are at a sea change in this debate. For years, we have debated in this House the possibility of a common fisheries policy. Now we have one. We may not like every part of it, but the uncertainty has gone. Now we know what fishing opportunities there are. I believe that this new stability will help the fishing industry enormously.
May I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister—and I hope that he will pass on my remarks to his right hon. Friend—that the speed with which the 1984 quotas were gained has had a tremendous impact on the industry. I think that most of us here and in the industry expected the process to go on for many months. So that has brought a further sense of stability.
I welcome the orders because they provide a way forward for restructuring the industry. The laying-up and decommissioning orders are of great value to fishermen. This costs the Government and the EEC a great deal of money.
I deal now with another fact that affects Fleetwood, which I represent. In the English ports, we are at a disadvantage compared with the Scottish and Northern Irish ports which have a greater assisted area status. They have the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Board and the Northen Irish Development Board. In England we have less money with which to restructure our fleets. The outlying parts of the United Kingdom have more resources at their disposal than we have. The fishermen in my constituency point to the modernisation that is taking place in the Northern Ireland fleet, which I understand is effective, and there are new vessels.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: New vessels are essential.

Sir W. Clegg: I agree that new vessels are essential, but it is easier for Irishmen and Scotsmen to get new vessels than it is for Englishmen.
I spent the weekend with the chairman of the inshore fishermen in my area discussing these measures, as I knew they were to be debated. He took the view, and I think it is the view of the association, that the measures were welcome. They will provide stability, and the chairman of the inshore fishermen considered the licensing orders to be just about right.
The subsidies that were paid to the fleet for the last two or three years, as the Minister has stated, are illegal, and that I accept. However, I am not so certain that the fleet in Fleetwood can be viable unless a similar subsidy is given. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to his civil servants for their assistance. It is hoped to provide from the inshore fishermen's organisation in Fleetwood a full financial picture of what is happening to the fleet, and of its viability. When we put in that application, I hope that the Minister will listen to what we have to say.
Much of the money that comes in will, of course, go to the banks to pay off the overdrafts and to ensure continued fishing. The viability of fishing is dependent on so many factors—for example, the price the fishermen get when they land their fish, and the regularity with which they can catch the fish. Regularity is difficult for an inshore industry as opposed to the old fleet that could fish in any weather and bring the fish into the port.
When I first took part in fishing debates some 18 years ago, the House had one debate a year. The House now has more than one debate every year. The position has, therefore, changed. From representing a port that had a large number of deep sea and middle water trawlers going to sea to fish, I now represent a port which has an inshore fleet only. That is the size of the change. It is not easy to quantify the hardships that the fleet has undergone to reach the present position.
From what my hon. Friend has said, I believe that there is hope in our restructured inshore fleets. I trust that what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight will set a new pattern for the future and that, when the House next debates fisheries, there will be a much better picture to look at, and a much more prosperous fleet to debate.

10 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not hold it against the Minister that he did not devote a major part of his speech to the Herring and White Fish (Specified Manx Waters) Licensing (Variation) Order, but I want to refer to it at no great length. It involves a matter and an anxiety which touches closely not only the Northern Ireland fishing industry but the fishermen all round the United Kingdom coasts of the Irish sea and, indeed, further afield, since boats from the east coast are now seeking opportunities in Irish sea waters.
I should say, in fairness to the Minister, that I received a letter from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, apologising for his inability to be present at the debate this evening. Perhaps his discourtesy was partly mine in not giving notice to him that I intended to intervene. Nevertheless, the subject is one with which the Minister is not unfamiliar, since I recall that he was an interested and attentive auditor in two Adjournment debates which took place at the end of November and the beginning of December last year.
The matter arises in the following way. The Fisheries Act 1981, by an amendment of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, enabled United Kingdom fisheries Ministers to make arrangements for any of their licensing powers
to be exercised by other persons on their behalf.
It would be natural not to consider that the words "other persons" could include any other persons whatsoever upon the face of the globe. It would be strange, for example, if they could include the Emperor of Japan or even the President of France. In fact, those powers of devolution have been used by fisheries Ministers since they were created by the 1981 Act to make the Government of the Isle of Man the agent for the exercise of the licensing powers in the defined Manx waters; that is to say, the waters between three miles from the coast of the Isle of Man up to 12 miles or, in one very small area, up to the median line between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom.
That action has caused considerable anxiety to United Kingdom fishermen who are interested in fishing in those waters and, indeed, whose customary main livelihood has been found in those waters. First, they would much sooner that their own Ministers were directly imposing and managing the controls which apply to their operations. At times the controls have been quite constrictive. Secondly, they have reason to think that the authorities in the Isle of Man have recently taken on inordinate ambitions for the expansion of the fishing industry and the processing industry in the Isle of Man at the unfair expense of the United Kingdom fisheries and processing industries.
If one asks why United Kingdom fisheries Ministers have used this power to make the Isle of Man their agent, one receives the answer given to me by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who in a written answer said that it
helps to provide for more rapid adjustment of catching to market needs by varying the level at which weekly or fortnightly vessel allocations are set within the United Kingdom quota." —[Official Report, 26 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 643.]
We cannot easily be told both that and that the Manx authorites are acting purely as the agents of United Kingdom Ministers and in accordance with policies agreed between the three Ministers and the Manx authorities. Either there is a discretion of variation of this kind from week to week and fortnight to fortnight, or there is not.
If that discretion is left, as this implies, in the hands of the Manx authorities, then ipso facto it is a discretion which is not being exercised in accordance with the current agreement arrived at by all four authorities in the light particularly of the interests and requirements of the United Kingdom fishermen. The Minister will be aware that even in present circumstances, where there is an agency arrangement, considerable suspicion and friction have arisen between the United Kingdom fishermen and the Manx authorities, so much so that when recently—so Lord Mansfield explained to me—because of shortness of time, the licences were issued directly by the Manx authorities to my fishermen in Northern Ireland, the fishermen were so alarmed and incensed by this that they sent them back and insisted on receiving them from the only authority they recognised, namely, the United Kingdom fishery authority, in this case the Northern Ireland fishery Minister.
The question arises: what can be the justification, even in present circumstances, for a delegation which puts United Kingdom citizens at arm's length from their own representatives and their own Ministers in matters which concern their daily operations and their livelihood? Behind all this there lies the spectre of the possibility of the Government, and particularly the Home Office as the operative department of the Government, making an agreement with the Manx authorities to transfer to them the direct control, the initiating control, as it were, over the Manx fishery waters, the 3–12 miles limit.
I have had the opportunity not only of earlier debates in the House but also of discussion with the Home Secretary, and I naturally inquired what argument there could be for such a transfer. I was told that two considerations had apparently been urged by the Manx authorities in support of their request. They have nominally withdrawn their original request, which was frankly discriminatory, but the fact that the original request was discriminatory only too clearly reveals what must be the intention behind conversion of an agency status into a status of direct responsibility. The reply that I got was that there were two considerations: first, conservation, and second, enforcement.
I shall take those considerations separately. The conservation measures are in the bulk the total allowable catches fixed by the European Economic Community and applied and administered by the member states. In any case, the reallocation in the form of quotas and application by licence is worked out by the United Kingdom fishery Ministers and United Kingdom fishery Ministers are responsible to the House and to hon. Members for it. If this amounts to a claim by the Manx authorities that the United Kingdom fishery authorities are not observing the requisite quotas and total allowable catches — which I cannot believe for a moment—or that they are operating or seeking to operate the licensing system unreasonably, that is a most improbable proposition and one that calls into question the motives of the Manx authorities in putting forward the proposition.
Their second argument is enforcement. Enforcement is in the hands of the United Kingdom fishery Ministers. It is carried out by United Kingdom fishery protection vessels. Therefore, we appear to be faced with a statement that that control is inadequate and that the fishery control authorities of the United Kingdom are not doing their job. Again, that seems to me to be highly unlikely, and it is something that I would expect United Kingdom fishery Ministers to repudiate.
The fishermen who depend so much upon the Manx fishery waters are left with the position that, first, the control of those waters has during the last three years been put at one remove from the Ministers responsible and answerable to them. But now this appears to be a paving operation which would lead to that control being taken out of the hands of the United Kingdom and vested in an authority which has its own private, local, sectional interests to consider and which, if it were the administering authority with full responsibility, would hardly fail to take account of that sectional interest.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am trying to follow with great care the constitutional import of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he putting the case that in this order a Minister is or is not acting on behalf of Her Majesty, not as Queen of the United Kingdom but as Lord


of Man which her ancestors purchased? This is a substantial point because, for instance, the Isle of Man declared war on Germany in 1914 but was not a signatory to Versailles. Therefore, there is an element of constitutional doubt. I am waiting to hear whether my right hon. Friend, if I may call him that, is putting forward the case that the Minister is acting for the United Kingdom Government or for the Lord of Man.

Mr. Powell: I shall try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity if I possibly can more briefly than the posing of the question.
Under the present arrangements, United Kingdom Ministers as such are purporting to act upon the power in the 1981 Act to make arrangments for their licensing powers to be exercised by other persons on their behalf. I very much doubt whether the interpretation which a court would put upon that provision would include transferring the exercise of those powers to an authority outside the United Kingdom.
That is the present position, but at any rate as the Isle of Man authorities are agents, Ministers of the Crown ultimately remain responsible in this House. But—

Mr. Mark Hughes: But they will not answer questions.

Mr. Powell: I would not mind having a try at asking questions. But the proposal of the Isle of Man authorities is—no doubt it would require legislation in this House — that we should transfer to them from the United Kingdom control over the waters up to 12 miles from the Isle of Man which at the moment is vested in the United Kingdom.
I am drawing attention to the anxieties which the fishermen naturally feel at the prospects of the jurisdiction over those waters — not the agency administration—being transferred outside the United Kingdom altogether to the authorities of the Isle of Man, which is not part of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Minister will find a space in his speech in winding up in which he can move further towards reassuring those for whom I speak than the Government have so far succeeded in doing. So far they have simply said that in any arrangements with the Isle of Man they will have in mind the interests of the United Kingdom fishermen. That only increases the suspicion that something is going on which could damage the interests of the United Kingdom fishermen. What I should like to hear from the Minister is that there is no question of this responsibility of United Kingdom Ministers being transferred as such to any external authority.

Sea Fisheries

Sir Patrick Wall: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his important constitutional point, which he understands thoroughly and I do not.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) acknowledged the speed of the Government's action. The basis of his speech was that the restructuring funds should be spent not only on vessels but on the men manning those vessels. I am in considerable agreement with him and hope to say more about that later. The hon. Gentleman talked about British United Trawlers. I represent part of the port of Hull. We have been losing men from the distant water fleet for many years. If one has an agreement about the matter, the difficulty is knowing where to start. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman mention the three orders that I understand the Opposition are praying against. He concentrated on the scheme.
I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Minister and briefly touch on the background to the orders. Older Members will remember the full history that led to them. The three cod wars gave the deep water fleet in Hull 10 more years of fishing. Then the 200-mile limit was imposed and we had to fish in our own backyard or, as far as we were concerned, in the EEC's backyard. We spent five years arguing about that.
When the Labour Government left office, every member of the EEC was against us. Thanks to the work of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that has changed. We now have an agreed common fisheries policy. That is a big feather in the Government's cap, and that has been sufficiently noted. Of course, we asked for more than we expected to get, but we obtained an agreement that was as good as possible and was accepted by the industry. We had a major debate on the matter on 7 December and a statement was made on total allowable catches on 1 February. Both were largely welcomed by the House.
Statutory instrument No. 1883 will bring into force many of the matters that we discussed on 7 December. The grants for laying up, decommissioning, exploratory voyages and joint ventures will be useful to the remainder of the distant water fleet remaining in Hull, not that there is much left of it, but there is some. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, joint ventures could include the Falkland Islands. There is still scope for those fine vessels costing over £1 million each.
When I first became a Member of the House, 30 years ago come Friday— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Hull was the senior port in the country. Now it is reduced practically to nothing. However, the announcement made today will be of great help in future. There will be some facilities for the distant water fleet and money will be available in decommissioning grants, which should be used in the area. I was pleased to see in Fishing News the advertisement:

The Fishing Port of Hull Born 1760
Survived its darkest hour in 1980
invested in the future and going strongly in 1984".
The orders that we are discussing will be of assistance in that. Of course, it would have been better, as some of us had pressed the Government, to make the grants available earlier, but for obvious reasons that was impossible. As I said in December, the industry is extremely grateful that it was done in 1983, which made a considerable difference to the remainder of the distant water fleet. Whether the grants are sufficient, and the method of payment, will be debated. It is now up to the industry. It has a firm basis for restructuring. One hopes that it will take full advantage of that.
A firm which buys or builds a trawler or other fishing vessel obviously expects compensation if that vessel is scrapped or laid up. However, there should be redundancy payments for the crew. While the money for that cannot come out of the sum that goes in compensation to the firm, it should come from somewhere. Reference has been made to letters from the Department of the Environment to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I hope that we shall be told which Minister is responsible.
The restructuring of the fleet can now proceed, and I gather that a total of £111·6 million will be available.

Mr. MacGregor: It is £85 million.

Sir Patrick Wall: I was including the EEC grant. I gather, however, that I am wrong and that, broadly speaking, the total sum available will be £85 million. That is a large sum. Now that we are building much smaller vessels, that should cover the restructuring of the fleet.
I need not comment on statutory instrument No. 1879. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South dealt adequately with that. Statutory instrument No. 1881 also reduces the size of vessel needing a licence from 12·19 to 10 m. I believe that that is a good thing, because, as the Minister said, it puts us in line with the EEC. It is really also a matter of conservation, and Opposition Members are as keen on conservation as we are.
Statutory instrument No. 92 is a specialised provision which also reduces the size of vessel which must be licensed. That, too, is good, and I am wondering why the Opposition have prayed against that and the other statutory instruments. They have not told us why they have taken that action. I do not want to sound facetious, but as two of the statutory instruments alter "monk fish" to "angler fish", and as some Opposition Members are against not only hunting but angling, perhaps it was that that caused the Leader of the Opposition to put his name to the prayers.
It seems strange that the Leader of the Opposition should have put his name to prayers concerning somewhat minor statutory instruments. We do not know why he has done that. Perhaps we shall receive some enlightenment when their spokesman winds up the debate for the Opposition. Suffice it to say that these statutory instruments represent a follow-up to successes that have been achieved since we came to power in 1979.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) referred to the change in name from monk fish to angler fish, and I had intended to question the Minister about that alteration. I am no


expert on fish, but I think that I would recognise them as separate fish. The monk fish is important for our fishermen because it fetches a high price nowadays; it is palmed off in many restaurants as scampi because of its quality. Although the angler fish is in the same class as the monk fish, it is a different fish altogether, and perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to why the change is being made.
The Ministry's introductory remarks were lucid, and hon. Members cannot be in any doubt about what the instruments contain and what they portend. He pointed out that many people had claimed that the common fisheries policy would never work. It is early days yet. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's optimism will be confirmed in due course, but, having spoken to fishermen since the policy was signed, I have the impression that they welcome it purely because they got tired of the argy-bargy and interminable negotiations. At the end of the day they were prepared to settle for a good deal less than what they might have been entitled to. We must remember that we in the United Kingdom have 60 per cent. of the fish in the Common Market pool. The EEC argument is that fish swim everywhere, but for the fishing industry what counts is where the mature fish are caught.
The restructuring of the fleet has been mentioned. I believe that the scheme is concerned with reducing the fleet. We should be in no doubt about that. I intended to ask the Minister about the sentence
reduce the time spent at sea
and whether a recipient of financial aid would be barred from ownership or part-ownership of a new vessel. The Minister made it clear that the licences will not be transferred to a new vessel. It is therefore clear that the intention of the scheme—it was clear from the Common Market at an early stage — is to ensure that any fisherman who takes advantage of it is required to take the money and, if the phrase is not inappropriate, ride off into the sunset and get out of the fishing industry. That is the main purpose of the assistance.
The Minister said that the scheme will cost £85·6 million. I am intrigued at the precision of that figure. How does he know how many applicants there will be? I agree that the basis of the payments is good. Vessels will be removed by scrapping, by going to a third country, or by being assigned to another purpose. That is a commonsense arrangement, as many of those vessels could be used for many purposes in the confines of a harbour.
I agree with what the Minister said about a licensing system, although it would appear that taking advantage of the scheme will mean that the number of vessels in the fishing fleet around the United Kingdom will be reduced considerably. Although the licensing system is sound, fishermen taking advantage of the scheme will have to get out of the industry. It is a scheme for redundancy payments which are not all that generous. Although it is good that there will be something for vessels that have passed their day and that the fishermen who owned them will have some compensation, it has ominous undertones for the British fishing fleet.

Mr. David Harris: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said that the inevitable consequence of the scheme is that the number of fishing vessels around our coast will be drastically reduced. With great respect to him, that is not necessarily so as the aim

of the scheme is restructuring. That is often a euphemism for scrapping, but some of the fishermen affected might switch from deep-water boats, which have nowhere to go unless they come to the south-west, to a more suitable local type of boat. In many ports, especially in the southwest, there has recently been an increase in the number of fishing boats. I hope that the forecast which the right hon. Gentleman made with such firmness is proved wrong.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for reassurance — perhaps he can get it from the civil servant in the Box—that the consequence of the laying up or decommissioning scheme will not be that some of the grants are used for vessels which are now technically British but, in practice, are to all intents and purposes Spanish. I do not need to remind the House of the campaign in which some of us were involved—I was not a Member then—against a massive abuse by which Spain re-registers boats in Britain, many in west country ports, thereby setting up companies and gaining access to our waters. One such company has its head office in an antique shop in Kensington. Some of us said then that we feared that a side effect of that practice would be that some Spanish boats would eventually qualify for such grants.
I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 18 of the order, which states that boats will qualify for decommissioning grants by
(a) scrapping
or
(b) permanent transfer to a third country otherwise than in pursuance of a joint fishing venture.
I am no lawyer—I am not even a constitutional expert like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—but, on the surface, that paragraph could mean that Spanish boats which have been reregistered in Britain and which are subject to the British Fishing Boats Act 1983, a measure which I like to believe I played a small part in introducing, could be transferred back to Spain with the help of a decommissioning grant. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that that is not the case, and that there will be safeguards against such an abuse.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Could not that aim be achieved practically by putting a full stop after the words,
permanent transfer to a third country
in paragraph 18(b) and leaving out the words
otherwise than in pursuance of a joint fishing venture"?

Mr. Harris: As I said earlier, I am not a constitutional expert, let alone a lawyer. I do not mind what words are removed from the order. I leave it to the Minister and the civil servants to ensure that the scheme is not abused. If it is, there will be shouts of anger from the fishing ports round our coast, not least from the south-west.
I had not intended to say much about the mackerel box in this debate until the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned a letter of which I have not seen a copy. Now that he has mentioned it, and as part of the order deals with western waters, stocks and licensing arrangements, I must return to the subject. First, I assure the hon. Member for Clackmannan that the last thing that I or the Cornish fishermen want is a war with the Scottish fishermen. As I said in an earlier intervention, the reason why the mackerel box was advocated by the scientists was not to stop people from outside the area from fishing inside the box but to conserve fish. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been with me last Friday when I flew over


Falmouth harbour in a helicopter. I counted at least 24 factory ships—most of them from Communist countries—lying off Falmouth. They were transhipping mackerel from Scottish boats, some Cornish boats, and from other boats that were indisputably fishing against the spirit of that conservation measure.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman has been in Penzance about a fortnight ago to hear Dr. Stephen Lockwood, the Ministry's senior scientist on mackerel, give a lecture on the state of mackerel stocks in the west. He made it clear, as he has on many occasions, that the scientific advice is that there should be no fishing of mackerel to protect the immature stocks off the south-west coast.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That distinguished scientist announced to an astonished public what a Select Committee of the House recommended eight years ago, but which the then Government denied.

Mr. Harris: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring to the same scientist.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes I am.

Mr. Harris: I have heard the self-same scientist give his advice on a number of occasions, and he has not wavered from what he is saying now.
The principle of the box is conservation, whoever fishes in it. As I said during the December debate, the fishing is increasing considerably. It has increased enormously since the previous debate on this issue. That is happening because of a defect in the regulations on so-called bottom trawling. I warned the House that it would not be confined to fishing by Scottish fishermen or Cornish fishermen and that the fishing would go wider. Unfortunately, that prophecy has been upheld. There are boats fishing inside the box from Ireland—I believe north and south, but certainly south. My latest information, which is authoritative, is that there are 27 large Dutch bulk catchers fishing inside the box. We are fearful that once again a conservation measure is being brushed aside and that the stocks are being depleted. It does not matter who is catching the mackerel, because if the stocks are wiped out there will be nothing to argue about. If that happens, a crime will have been committed.

Mr. O'Neill: I was endeavouring to stress that eight weeks ago we were discussing a situation that had virtually reached mackerel war proportions between the north-east and some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. There was an inability to communicate. If that difficulty has not been resolved, at least the south-west fishermen's organisation is talking about a dialogue taking place and the prospect of an improvement. Part of the fragility of the present arrangement is leading to the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred tonight and in December. The difficulties within the British fleet have receded somewhat because there is no longer an inability to communicate, but only time will tell whether we can establish a proper arrangement.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining what he was saying earlier. I am all in favour of dialogues, but there can be no talking about arrangements that lead to over-fishing in the box. I want good relations with the Scots and I have pleaded with others not to talk about a fishing war—the leaders of

the Cornish fishermen have made a similar plea—be it between Cornishmen and Scots or anyone else. There cannot be a dialogue that leads to a continuation of the fishing that is going on inside the box. My plea to the Minister tonight, as on a number of occasions both inside and outside the Chamber, is for him to take urgent measures to protect the stock.
Unfortunately, we have passed the meeting of Ministers that took place earlier in the month when a decision could have been taken to correct the defect in the EC regulation. As the next Fisheries Council meeting is not until 5 March, the only step that can be taken to protect the stock right away is to stop the bulk catching of mackerel. The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred to the South-Western Fish Producer Organisation, and I shall quote from a letter from the Cornwall Inshore Fishermen's Association, which I know has been sent to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The final paragraph states:
In view of this we think it advisable to suspend the mackerel licence in the South West at the usual time in February or early March again this year.
The licence should be suspended immediately and bulk catching should be stopped because the dodge about which I spoke in December has worsened. The box is in danger of being burst completely. It is the worst of all worlds when conservation is seen to fail and fall into disrepute.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) about the increasing frequency of debates. I welcome it, but the number of debates, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials and Front-Bench speeches grows in inverse ratio to the catch of the British fishing industry. It is an imposition on the rest of hon. Members that Front-Bench speeches should be so long in such a short debate.
I welcome the scheme, but with much the same warmth as the Prime Minister welcomed her son turning up accidentally in Oman. I assume that there was some coolness. Although there are some benefits in the scheme, especially the extension of registered length to 10m—if it had been shorter, it would have split the Grimsby fleet—it is, especially on the laying-up grant, complex and almost Byzantine. It is not generous.
More importantly, this measure is a substitute for operating aid which is essential to the continuity of the English fishing industry. We must recognise that we are buying out capacity. We are providing for the shrinking of the fishing industry. The former Minister provided for the planning of the industry by liquidation and bankruptcy; the present Minister is providing for buying out, which is his version of planning. The consequence, as has been pointed out by fish merchant, Mr. Ken Beeken, is that there will not be fish to catch on an all-year round basis. For many months, catches will not be landed from British vessels. The processing, merchant and market sectors will be forced to make arrangements with overseas suppliers to provide for continuity. That will reduce demand for British catches and have an adverse effect on British industry. Those facts must be borne in mind.
It is important for a place such as Grimsby that provision is made for shrinkage of a fleet which is already too small to make optimum use of the facilities concentrated on the port. That shrinkage is not in the interests of British industry vis-à-vis its competitors in the Common Market. Those competitors are not regulated in


the same tight disciplined way as British industry. The catch not being made by British vessels—which will be bought out as the industry shrinks under this type of measure—will be taken up by continentals fishing in a far less effectively controlled fashion. Their authorities have not shown the same determination to conform to the rules of the game as our authorities. That will be a disastrous consequence of the Minister's proposal.
Operating aid is essential to the English fishing industry. It provides between £6,000 and £10,000 a year for the average vessel in Grimsby, which is the type of contribution that the vessels cannot do without. Fishermen are being asked to make a transition to smaller fishing opportunities and more limited catches without the operating aid that is essential if they are to make that transition. Operating aid was essential as a sign of Government confidence in the industry. It was essential to keep the confidence of the banks going. The fishing industry is functioning largely on credit, and that is in danger of being recalled without the confidence that the Government could have shown by providing operating aid.
The industry's problem is cash flow. We have had a disastrous winter with savage weather which has meant non-existent catches for Grimsby. There has been no income, and the industry is being asked to survive without the operating aid that it has received in the past. It cannot.
The Minister is providing a push-pull measure. He is not providing operating aid to keep the industry going; he is luring vessels out of the industry with lay-up and scrapping finance. We should have operating aid, and the Minister can pay it, because the Community rules, about which he tells us so much and which he alone seems to be observing, have been completely ignored by the French Government, without any proceedings being taken against them by the Commission. The fuel subsidy for French vessels is about 21 centimes per litre. The French Government provide about 10 per cent. of the operating costs of the French vessels.
Our vessels are being asked to compete with French vessels, whose fuel charges have been subsidised, to catch our fish. We do not know what other aids have been provided in other countries. The French fuel subsidy came to light only as the result of a strike by French skippers refusing to put to sea because the fuel subsidy was not increased. Our industry has been keeping tabs on that ever since. We do not know what covert aids are being paid by other countries.
How, for instance, can the Dutch afford to build freezers when our industry is laying them up? What about the aid that is provided by low port charges? Docks are provided as a service to the industry in many countries. I visited the west Danish ports with the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and found that aid was provided to the ports as a kind of regional development aid to provide growth points for the industry. Their landing charges were much less than ours. They are so low that British vessels are being lured to land in Denmark. Catches are being made within 150 miles of Grimsby, but it is cheaper for the vessels to land them in Scotland, other English ports, or in Denmark, and to have the catches transported down the Ml, or across the North sea, to be sold on the Grimsby market when the fish is less fresh. That is ludicrous. If ever there were a case for planning within the industry, that is it.
We should provide the aid that will enable the industry to keep going, and use the available facilities to the

optimum level. The Government are effectively saying to the industry, "Compete with subsidised competitors and bear the heavy burden of dock charges which make you uneconomic." Dock charges in Grimsby must be about 15 per cent. of the revenue from each trip as against 4 per cent. in other English ports, 2 per cent. in Scotland and a similar amount in Denmark. The industry is being crushed by that unreasonable burden.
The industry's economics are completely distorted by charges that are at the Government's discretion. If the Government are to plan for the industry by providing benefits for people who lay up vessels, they must provide equality of charges.
The main ports—Aberdeen, Hull and Grimsby—are subject to charges set by Associated British Ports, which must make a return on its capital, and the return will be keener now that the ports have been privatised. It does not pay to land fish locally. It pays to land it where the charges are lower and to bring it in overland.
The Government must consider the spread of the industry and recognise the importance of concentrating the full range of services needed for a viable industry and encourage the industry to make the best use of those points instead of dispersing the industry, which will lead to the ruin of major ports such as Grimsby. Confidence is at a low ebb in Grimsby. There is a mood of fear, now that the operating subsidy has been withdrawn.

Mr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a high proportion of the charges that he complains about in the port is a direct consequence of the dock labour scheme?

Mr. Mitchell: That is a constant red herring. If a port is to be efficient and have a quick turn-round of vessels, it needs an efficient labour force to land the fish quickly. The problem is that we are trying to spread the burden of charges over an increased catch. The Government are, in effect, stopping that increased catch from being made. They are limiting the catch that the industry can make, which is crucial to a port such as Grimsby. Grimsby depends totally on cod, and the cod catches are being limited. Therefore, the attempt to spread the charges over a reasonable level of catches is completely vitiated. We need efficient labour to land the fish if we are to have an efficient industry. Otherwise, we shall become a small-scale industry. The major problem concerns the charges imposed by Associated British Ports, which go on escalating and bear no relation to the industry's ability to pay.
I second remarks made about the one-sided nature of the benefits. We have a restructuring plan here which benefits the owners — and benefits them only to the extent of putting them out of the industry—when the opportunity should have been taken to consider the needs of the people who have served the industry, often with their lives, and certainly with back-breaking toil—the fishermen. For years, they have had a raw deal on redundancy. Cases need to be analysed individually. It is wrong to say that because of signing on and signing off fishermen do not have continuity of service. Most of them have had no redundancy payments. There were two recent cases—the Miller and Massey cases—which turned out to be exceptional, because both had not only long service but some kind of retainer from the company. Those two cases aroused a lot of expectation among redundant


trawlermen that something would be done for them. Certainly something should have been done. That expectation has been exploited for political motives, but there is still a moral obligation to do something.
The opportunity has not been taken in measures of this nature, as the industry expected, to do something for the men and their redundancy. They carry the burden. The 108 fishermen in Hull who are made redundant by the laying-up of the BUT vessels carry the can. Their lives are destroyed, while the owners go out of the industry altogether. Something should have been done to regulate redundancies.
I sympathise with the Minister, because he has the job of clearing up after the inadequate settlement that was made. Indeed, if it were not inadequate, we should not have to run down the industry in the way that the measure proposes. The Minister has done his job conscientiously, and in many respects the measure is to be welcomed, but fishermen need an imaginative plan, not just a process of buying out vessels and running down capacity. Fishing has a future, provided it has an imaginative leadership and a plan that will allow it to concentrate on those points where the industry can be properly served and be most efficient. This measure does not do that.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I support the orders, but I want to draw to my hon. Friend's attention events of which he is wholly unaware—and, therefore, defects of which he is wholly unaware — bearing in mind the fact that the House does not have the power to amend statutory instruments or orders.
I served on the Select Committee of the House under the distinguished chairmanship of Dr. Edmund Marshall, then Member for Goole. That Select Committee produced the first and only report on the British Fishery industry that has ever been produced, to my knowledge. The Committee in the course of its inquiries had to do a sub-investigation on the stability of fishing vessels regulations. In the course of the investigation the senior civil servant involved—I make no point of the fact that it was under a previous Government — Mr. Malcolm Service, an Assistant Secretary in the then Department of Industry and Trade, resigned from the public service prematurely when caught out giving untruthful evidence to the Select Committee. When his surveyor in the south west, who had boasted round the pubs that he would put a large number of fishing vessels on the beach, was summoned to give evidence to the Select Committee, he resigned from the public service rather than come and give evidence.
My message to my hon. Friend is that he should not rely, without any mechanism for appeal, on what is alleged in the scheme to be his opinion, when it is not he who has examined the boat.
I recommend to the House Statutory Instrument 1883, Fishing Vessels, Financial Assistance Scheme, 1983. Under "disability and unfitness" of vessels on page 5, section 7 says:
must not in the opinion of the appropriate Minister
referring back to an earlier page, one finds that he is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
be unfit for undertaking sea fishing without undergoing repairs.
What appeal has the owner of the boat—or, indeed, the owners of the boat, because in many cases there are

Partners—against an opinion of we know not who? It is not the opinion of the Minister. The Minister will not examine the boat. Will the Minister sub-contract the technical survey of that boat to a Department that is already discredited by the Select Committee on which I served? And there is no reason to suppose that it has become more perfect since. This is a matter not of fishing habits but of survey. Has the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food surveyors in whom my hon. Friend has such confidence that there need be no appeal proceedure from the secret advice to the Minister that a vessel is unfit, that advice being unchallengeable?
Under "fitness of vessels" on page 9, paragraph 21 says:
On the date of application the vessel to which an application for a de-commissioning grant relates must not in the opinion of the appropriate Minister"—
that is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—
be unfit for undertaking sea fishing without undergoing major alterations or repairs.
This is the opinion, not of the Minister, but of some unspecified officer, and it may be by agency. The order makes no provision for appeal in this case.
I am not asking the Minister to say that the fishermen can write to him and say that a vessel is really fit, or that a fisherman can go, as under any outrageous law, to the High Court and ask for a judicial review. That is not the remedy that we look for when legislation is discussed in the House. I am asking the Minister not to withdraw the order but, after reflection, to introduce a subsidiary order providing for an appeal procedure. I hope that he will introduce—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Whip want to intervene? I hoped that he might. [Interruption.] Does the Whip want to intervene? He does not? But I thought that his conversation related to what I am saying. As an experienced lawyer I should have thought that my argument would appeal to him.
I should like the Minister to agree that in a subsequent order he will provide an appeals procedure against a declaration of unfitness which disqualifies. That is not an unreasonable request.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to a recent television interview by a Dr. Lockwood, a senior, if not the senior, adviser on fisheries to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in which he rightly said that the records of the attrition of breeding stocks were hopelessly unreal because not all the catches were landed.
That astonishing revelation which hit the world on television was highlighted in my Select Committee's report seven or eight years ago. Not only that, but it was denied by the Ministry's chief fisheries adviser at Felixstowe.
The Committee then took evidence from the director of the Icelandic fisheries laboratory in Reykjavik — in a country where 37 per cent. of the GNP comes from fisheries. We reinforced that with evidence from the Joint Permanent Secretary of the Norwegian Department of Fisheries in Bergen, and then recalled the witness from Felixstowe who admitted that the evidence that he had given to the Committee was wholly capricious, and not based upon experimental evidence.
That witness said that shoals of mackerel caught in pure seine nets and released into the sea because they were not of prime market size, were dead. That was the point at issue. The Ministry evidence first was that what the west


country fishermen had told us was untrue. The sea bed was being polluted with dead mackerel which meant that when demersal fish were caught they were unsaleable because they were polluted with rotten mackerel. It also meant that the rates of attrition were not properly recorded.
We made two recommendations. The first was that all fish caught at sea should be landed, so that accurate records could be kept. The second was that transhipment should not occur. Why? What happens on factory ships is well-known. The operators pay 25 per cent. a tonne above the going rate, but demand overweight to be booked as true weight. This is the scandal of the factory ships. The records show only the booked weight, but they demand 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. overweight in a booked tonne—they pay a bit more for it—so that the records are false.
Dr. Lockwood has announced that by his scientific methods he has discovered what a Select Committee of the House knew seven or eight years ago, and announced to a public that were indifferent and to a Government that did not want to know. My hon. Friend should beware of the technical advice he gets from within his own Department,
when Members of the House who have taken evidence and know what they are talking about can give him better advice. He would not have to wait seven or eight years for it, during which time the breeding stock is being murdered. This is material and it has to be said in public, because when it is said in private it has no effect. That is why it must be said in a debate like this tonight.

Mr. James Wallace: The House is grateful for the meticulous care which the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gives to orders such as this, because he can spot loopholes. Perhaps the House is not indulgent enough about the length of time it gives for the explanation of a straightforward but important omission. No doubt the Minister will refer to it in his reply.
This is a welcome debate which gives us an opportunity to examine the proposals in detail and to discuss fisheries without necessarily being obsessed with the minutiae of the common fisheries policy with regard to total allowable catches and quotas.
On the financial assistance scheme I wish to stress a point already referred to in the debate about the decommissioning grant. The response to the Department's discussion paper suggested that the decommissioning grant should be accompanied by a system of payments for elderly fishermen who, after a minimum period of 20 years at sea and having reached the age of 55, might be seeking early retirement. That does not appear anywhere in the scheme. Perhaps it affects the efficacy of the provisions, as I hope to illustrate in my remarks.
If one is to assess how useful these measures will be, one would hope to be able to consider them in the context of an overall Government policy. The Government paper to which I have already referred was not so much a discussion paper as a question paper. In paragraph 3, headed "Need for Restructuring", there is a series of questions:
Is there a need for change to the size and structure of the fleet? If so, is the present problem a general one, or is it limited to particular fish stocks or to vessels of particular size or type? What changes should be looked for in the numbers and types of vessels operating, their location and their fishing patterns?

We have had no answers to these questions. My initial reaction was that perhaps the Government had not got round to finding answers, but from what the Minister said in his opening remarks it appears that they do not want to come up with answers; they would rather leave the fishing industry to adapt freely in response to new operating conditions. That is what has happened up to now and it has not worked out to the benefit of the fishing industry.
The questions which are asked in the discussion document in many respects beg earlier questions. It would be impossible for the fishing industry to give an indication of the size and nature of the fleet in future when more fundamental questions have not been answered. The Minister indicated that the Government were considering proposals on marketing. Until we know how much assistance the Government will give to marketing, and the consequences that that will have for the processing industry and the men who do the fishing, we shall not be able to make a proper assessment of the needs and structure of the fishing industry in the coming years.
We are now in a som what better position than 12 months ago, with quotas for the most part agreed, although it is still likely that from year to year TACs will fluctuate, but until we have greater stability, the fishing industry will be left in some doubt about its requirements.
The prevailing view seems to be that our fleet is at maximum capacity. Therefore, is one to assume that the present package is meant to reduce the size of the fishing fleet? In that respect, it could fairly be asked whether the decommissioning grants will be adequate.
The Minister said that there had already been 70 applications, but he was unable to answer the pertinent question from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the geographical location of those applications. That again shows the Government's failure to have any coherent policy or planning on the future of the fishing industry.
If the vast majority of those applications came from the one port, that would pose serious problems for the community in that area. The Government should address themselves to where the main parts of our fishing fleet will be located. There is an argument for greater location in the more peripheral areas—the south-west, the north-east and the Highlands and Islands—that are much closer to the fishing grounds, with consequent savings in fuel costs. Again, that question has not been answered.
The absence of any coherent Government policy has been reflected in the way in which they have approached licensing. It is clear that the response of the Scottish fishermen's federations to the Government's discussion paper was for a form of structural licensing. It was suggested that each vessel currently in operation should have a structural licence and that there should be a board—not the Government—comprising people with a sound knowledge of the fishing industry to allocate licences within a general policy framework set down by the Government.
The Government have been rather lazy and have opted for second best. They have used legislation presently available to them under section 4(1) of the 1967 Act to license vessels with regard to specific species in specific areas. That is a flawed approach which could possibly undermine the general purpose behind the decommissioning grants.
The Minister said that he wishes to see a modernisation of the industry and a reduction in some of its capacity. The scheme announced last week is such that one boat—

Mr. Robert Huges: Watch your time.

Mr. Wallace: From a sedentary position I have been asked to watch my time. I am not party to any deal between the two Front Benches, and it is unfortunate that the Liberal Member has been called so late in the debate. My party has numerous fishing interests and I have great constituency interests. Therefore, it is only fair that I be allowed some time to mention them.
The system announced by the Minister implies that there must be a decrease in the number of licences. One boat must go before a new licence is granted. That can often be a lack of incentive to older fishermen and, hence, can hinder the modernisation of the fleet.
I take it that we are seeking to decommision an older boat which was built, say, in the 1950s. Under the present regulations a 75 tonne boat would receive £30,000. If a licence can be transferred with the vessel, and if the new owner is able to use that licence for another vessel, corporate bodies wishing to build vessels may well buy up the older vessels. Of course, the decommission grant price would be the bottom price for any sale.
The great fear expressed to me by those in my constituency with fishing interests is that the licensing system adopted by the Government could result in an increasing number of licences in the hands of some central or corporate body. That would not be in the best interests of the fishing industry, particularly the parts of it located in our more peripheral areas.
We do not have detailed criticisms of the package, but any criticism should be put in context. The package shows the Government's continued support for a laissez-faire approach to fishing, which has not been conspicuous to date in its success of matching catching capacity to market demand and available stocks. When it has responded, it has left communities desolate and reduced the size of the fishing industry in parts of the country—for example, Humberside.
Therefore, we call on the Minister to think again about licensing. The Government should come forward with a policy on marketing plans. They should tell us the size and structure of the fleet that they would like and its location, and introduce a proper mechanism to achieve those objectives.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I believe that it would be in the interests of the House if I were to be extremely brief to enable the Minister of State to reply to the many points raised in the debate.
I draw the Minister's attention to the areas to which he needs to address his reply. The first was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—the position of the Isle of Man. We need a definitive statement on where the Government stand on the control of the fishery round the Isle of Man. I am aware that the matter is extremely complex both juridically and in terms of conservation of fish, but I do not believe that Isle of Man, Ulster and Fleetwood fishermen can be left in uncertainty any longer. I trust that there will be a definitive statement.
Secondly, I support the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in his comments about the right of appeal against losing a vessel on a somewhat arbitrary facility. I ask the Minister specifically to address his remarks to the redundancy of men as opposed to payments for boats. It is no good offering a scheme that lays up boats and provides no effective provision for laid-off men. That is an unacceptable relationship.
In the European Assembly eight years ago, I advocated boat licensing as the essential measure of conservation. I welcome the licensing of vessels so that those who abuse their right to fish lose their livelihood. That must be the ultimate sanction that we apply in this country, but we shall not apply it unless we are assured that our colleagues in other countries in the Community apply the same strict rules and that what is licensing for our fishermen must be aliquot licensing for the Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Germans and everybody else.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: And the Spaniards.

Mr. Hughes: And, in turn, the Spaniards.
I welcome the scheme, particularly the licensing, but it must be for everyone on an equal basis.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) for giving me the opportunity to reply at least to some of the points that have been made in the debate. I assure him, in relation to the last point that he made, that I agree with him in spirit, which is what we endeavour to do in all our discussions in the Council of Ministers and in looking at the whole question of fishing inspectorate and controls for the years ahead.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) complained about the length of my opening speech. It was about double the length that it would have been had I not given way to a number of hon. Members, so as to be helpful, and among those to whom I gave way was the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. I am tempted to say that I will never give way to him again. He asked me about the geographical spread of applications. I have some figures on the subject, but the real point is that it would be premature to draw conclusions at this stage. The schemes have only recently opened and we do not know whether the pattern will continue. The schemes will be open for three years and I am talking so far only about applications and not about approvals. It would, therefore, be misleading to talk about this short period, particularly in terms of what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) suggested, if he would base his wise, all-central planning on the basis of the first initial applications. That is not the way in which, in my view, anybody should approach these matters, and I said earlier that I did not believe that that was the way in which it should be approached.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for his welcome of the move from 40 ft to 10 m. He asked for certain changes in the laying-up grant rules, but we must stick within the rules laid down by the Community if we are to benefit from the Community funds. That is why we have the rules in the relevant instrument. But the scheme, in terms of the laying-up grant rules, is aimed at the type of vessel which may not be currently viable, and that is an important aspect of what


we are trying to achieve. We have chosen the maximum rate of grant permitted under the Community legislation, and I suggest that we have got this one about right.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan criticised, in relation to decommissioning, the figure that we have used of £400 per gross registered tonne. That is the EEC figure, and had we wanted to go further, anything more would have had to be wholly nationally financed. In terms of what was wholly nationally financed, we responded to two of the industry's main suggestions, to which I referred in my opening remarks. Those suggestions were regarded by the industry, as well as by us, as the most cost effective and should be given the highest priority if we were able—as we were able—to find additional national funds to add to the scheme.
We must recognise that the decommissioning part of this package will be a substantial element, in terms of cost, in the whole package. I am doubtful whether we would have been right to go further and give additional funds, which would have come wholly from national funds, for decommissioning as against other parts of the package. Indeed, hon. Members have drawn attention to some of the difficulties involved in the decommissioning side—of which I was acutely aware—and for that reason we were right to stick to the EEC figure.
A number of hon. Members referred to the question of redundancy payments. The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred to a letter from Mr. Connolly, the national secretary of the docks, waterways and fishing group of the Transport and General Workers Union. That letter has come to me because he is raising certain parts of this whole area which are relevant to my Department; others, as he will know, are relevant to the Department of Employment. I have seen the letter—I have only just got it—and I shall shortly be replying to it.
To answer a particular point that the hon. Member for Clackmannan raised in that connection, there is no provision for Community finance under the common fisheries policy package for payments of this type. The finance made available by the Community was allocated to specific purposes and cannot be directed by the Government to the compensation of trawler crews, and tonight it is those particular Community finance packages about which we are talking. That is a straight factual point, one that I shall have to make to Mr. Connolly.
Going much further—I should be out of order if I developed this too far — I must point out that this problem has been with successive Governments for a considerable time. The main impact of the losses of crews caused by the change to the 200-mile limit occurred under a Labour Government, and they rejected a number of possible solutions. Indeed, I have with me an extract from the Official Report from which I am interested to see that you yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and I am saying "you yourself' in the correct terms on this occasion—commented on the subject. It has been a long-standing problem and I shall reply to Mr. Connolly in full.
I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) and for his recognition of the substantial advance that these masures and the agreement on 1984 TACs and quotas brings about so quickly. He made some points about Fleetwood. I have noted that, not for the first time, he will be making an approach on the matter soon. I shall consider it the moment I get it.
I move into rather trickier waters in regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said that I was an interested and attentive auditor in the two Adjournment debates to which I listened. I am more inclined to think that I was an interested and attentive audience. However, it is true that I listened carefully to what he said and others said in those debates. I hesitate to comment on the constitutional points, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) also got entangled on this issue.
This is not the appropriate forum for a definitive statement on the Government's stance on the judicial point about control in Isle of Man waters. The reason for that, quite apart from the fact that I have neither the time nor the authority to do so, is that the order affecting the Isle of Man has a limited effect. The right hon. Gentleman raised much wider issues about the approaches that the Isle of Man authorities have made. I understand his taking every parliamentary opportunity to do that, but they do not relate to this order. As he knows, the key ministerial authority lies with the Home Office. I shall ensure that his comments are passed on to my right hon. and learned Friend. He gave the statutory authority for carrying out this order as the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, as amended by the Fisheries Act 1981. Any conditions attached to the licences to which the order refers are determined in consultation and agreement with United Kingdom fisheries departments and, therefore, ultimately Ministers.
With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall), I understand well the agonising time that the port of Hull has suffered for reasons outwith its control. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for and appreciation of what the total package that we are endeavouring to put in place can mean.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) asked about angler fish and monk fish. I hesitate to take issue with him because I am not an expert in these species, but I am assured that they are the same fish. The order includes this rather minor point to bring our licensing orders into line with the European Commission TAC and quota regulation which uses the term anglerfish. I hesitate to say that I am also told that anglerfish is also the correct English name for the species.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised an important point about Spanish vessels. It is a complicted and technical point which I do not have time to go into, partly because I want to cover his other point. However, paragraph 46 of the order goes some considerable way to meet his point. I shall nevertheless write to him about it. With regard to the mackerel box, in view of the lack of time I shall have principally to refer to the debate in the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. last Thursday on the Draft Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) (Amendments) Order 1983. We went into this matter in some detail then. I made a fairly long statement on current circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not regard this matter as a battle between the Scottish and the Cornish fishermen. It must be examined entirely on conservation grounds. There is nothing illegal in bottom trawling at the moment because that exemption was allowed.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Should it have been?

Mr. MacGregor: That is a different question. We are actively pursuing it with the Commission. I am aware of the extent of the fishing that has taken place this year. My hon. Friend might know that the European Commission's scientific and technical committee has recommended the elimination of the derogation for bottom trawling. We are pursuing that actively.
I shall consider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton. I want to check the precedents for such aid schemes not only in MAFF but in other Departments. I can remember the enormous amount of time I spent judging ministerial cases on regional development grants when I was in another Department. The only reason that I am not giving my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks is because we must consider whether the setting up of a new body to act as a point of appeal would be expensive and cumbersome in relation to the issues themselves. That is something that—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1983 (S.I., 1983 No. 1883), dated 19th December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Brynmor John be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

LIAISON COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Sir Humphrey Atkins, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Harry Cowans, Sir Edward Gardner, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Sir Philip Holland, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Anthony Kershaw, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. Ron Leighton. Mr. Ian Lloyd, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mrs. Renee Short. Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. John Spence. Sir William van Straubenzee, Mr. Gareth Wardell, and Mr. Kenneth Warren be members of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Education (Liverpool)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the reorganisation of secondary schools in Liverpool.
I wish to begin my remarks by putting the matter into its historical context. The problem goes back to the very early and mid-1960s. At that time, politicians and planners were ripping the heart out of the city of Liverpool, displacing communities and laying waste whole areas through their scorched earth policies. The population displacement of those days is at the root of the city's problems today.
The decline in population has lost the city valuable ratepayers and, with them, valuable rate support grant. It has also lost contributing members of the community and led to the city having an ageing population. Indeed, the fastest growing group in Liverpool is the over-80s, and one quarter of the people are now over retirement age. That has coincided with a falling birth rate.
While some planners and politicians were embarking on the construction of vast municipal Bantustans that stretched facelessly between the railway lines and cemeteries, having shanghaied people to the outskirts of the city, others were building a whole variety of new municipal projects in the city. They were embarking on plans for inner ring roads and motorways, civic centres, high-rise blocks and massive schools. They were all pie-in-the-sky schemes and dreams that were to turn into ratepayers' nightmares.
Bigger did not necessarily mean better. It meant that small schools, small hospitals and small police stations closed, resulting in large faceless institutions that were far away from the people that they served. The education policy of the 1960s led to the creation of a massive school for 2,000 children in the very heart of the city. It currently has fewer than 300 children. That is at the root of the problems, which have been compounded by the falling birth rate.
In the building to which I referred, which has some of the best educational plant available, we see a monument to the municipal dictators who arrogantly believed that they knew best. That school is in the ward that I have represented from 1972, and in the constituency that I have represented since 1979. It was a great white hope that became a great white elephant.
In the mid-1970s the education committee recognised the need for rationalisation because of the falling birth rate and the small number of desks being filled. That is why the authority brought forward two plans. One was rejected in 1979 when Mrs. Shirley Williams was Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the other was rejected by the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) when he was Secretary of State.
Those plans should not have been rejected; they should have been passed. There was little parental opposition to them in the city. I regret that a small number of people intimidated the then Minister with responsibility for Merseyside and threatened violence if that large inner city school was closed. They had their way and blackmail,


bullying and bludgeoning became the order of the day. If those plans had been accepted, the city would not have the school reorganisation problems that it now faces.
The characteristics of those plans were the same as the alternative strategy that I recently put to the Minister when he was kind enough to meet delegations from the city. I pay tribute to the patience that he showed and his unfailing courtesy in meeting many groups of people with differing views. We are grateful to him for that. Many people in Liverpool would extend a welcoming invitation to him if he wished to come and see for himself the schools affected by the plans. I recognise and appreciate that in his current quasi-judicial capacity it will be difficult for him to comment in detail on the plans today, but as 70,000 people have objected to the plans he will not be surprised that I now put to him the alternative view of those who are worried about the proposals before him.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: I have intimated to the Chair that I would give way to one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who approached me before the debate, and I intend to do so later. As I have allocated the limited time at my disposal with that in mind, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I mean no discourtesy in not giving way now.
The characteristics of the two plans and the Liberal party alternative that we put to the Minister are the same. They are based on choice. This is not the old argument about selective versus non-selective schools. All but one of the schools in the city of Liverpool affected by this plan are non-selective. It is about parental choice. In the late 1970s, when I was a member of the education committee in Liverpool, we abolished catchment areas around primary schools. As a result, about 98 per cent. of parents in the city can now send their children to the school of their first choice. That will no longer be the case if these plans go through. The Liberal party takes the view that the strong schools should be allowed to survive and those that parents have rejected should be allowed to wither on the vine. We believe that the people of Liverpool are canny enough to choose the schools that are best for their children.
The characteristics of the Labour proposals, however, are based on dictatorial dogmatism, disregard for parental preference and a levelling down that takes no account of academic excellence, standards, discipline or achiev-ement. I draw attention to the statistics that the Minister gave in answer to questions that I tabled towards the end of last year. Paddington school in the inner city, which I mentioned earlier, currently has 267 children on the roll although it was built for 2,000. This year 28 people in the entire city gave that school as their first choice, although 180 places were available. That school achieved 19 O-level passes and not one A-level. Aigburth Vale girls' school, which would be closed under the Labour plan, has 698 children on the roll and there were 145 applications for the 120 places available. That school achieved 198 O- level passes and 30 A-levels.
The same pattern is repeated when one compares Yew Tree school and Childwell Valley school or Speke school and HiIlfoot Hey school. There is a high standard of academic excellence and a good attendance record at the schools that would be closed under the scheme but poor

examination results and poor attendance at those to be consolidated, despite the fact that parents have rejected them.
The Secretary of State says that excellence should be the criterion and that success should be built on success. If he believes that, he should reject the proposals. The incidence of absenteeism alone shows that some schools do not have the confidence of parents or their children. The former chairman of the Liverpool education committee, Councillor Michael Storey, tells me that the schools with the worst atendance recordds — three that I have mentioned—are those to be consolidated and kept open.
The North West Regional Society of Education Officers recently published a report shocking that in some schools where measurements were taken during one week, there was 40 per cent. absenteeism, including truancy of about 8 per cent., another 12 per cent. being absent without their parents' consent, and another 3 per cent. oversleeping and being late. Clearly, that is a matter for concern. It contrasts sharply with the figures currently offered by the department of education in Liverpool. Those alarming figures must be examined by the authority, even it if disagrees with the way in which the education officers conducted the survey. It is a reputable organisation and cannot be dismissed as being out of touch or lacking in understanding of education.
According to the society's figures, truancy is eight times higher than the levels to which the local authority admits, and absenteeism if four times higher. The local authority fails to keep monthly returns of attendance, which is to be regretted. I hope that it will do something about that.
The schools that will be consolidated in this plan are those which cost most. The example of Paddington school which I gave costs £500,000 a year to run, and the cost of educating one child there is one third as much again as the cost of educating a child in some of the schools that will be closed.

Mr. Terry Fields: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the Minister for allowing me to intervene in the debate. If we are to evaluate the position, the facts must be placed before the House. During the past 10 years the Liberals and Tories who ran Liverpool destroyed it and its education system. They shied away from the reorganisation that was necessary because of falling rolls and the under-usage of buildings. For purely electoral reasons, Liberal councillors shied away from reorganisa-tion, and their neglect and political cowardice caused confusion in the hearts and minds of parents and children.
As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill knows, the Labour party is not insensitive to the needs and fears of parents. The Labour party does not want to lower standards; it wishes to raise standards for all children. In many schools, parents and children have no choice. We want high standards, choice of curriculum and potential for all Liverpool's children.
If the Liberal party is so worried about standards of education, how does the hon. Gentleman answer the charge that in 1979 the Liberal party campaigned to retain Fairfield school, Edge Hill school and Lawrence Road school—which had no O or A-level passes—but wished to close Paddington school, which provided those courses? The Liberal party closed Paddington school, having kidded the parents that the authority would provide a


school on cathedral property. But it sold that land from under the parents' feet. It also closed Arundel school, which was one of the top five schools in deprived inner city areas that catered for the needs of working-class children.
This submission and others have been made to the Minister. The objectors have had a good go at keeping the schools open, and they have had the lion's share of the debate, so why does not the hon. Member for Mossley Hill present the truth to the House? This debate is nothing more than opportunism and publicity-seeking by the Liberal party, which created the problem. Its record of allowing the decline of education in Liverpool is at complete variance with the caring, sharing attitude that the hon. Gentleman displayed tonight. The people of Liverpool have seen through him, and have rejected him and his policies.

Mr. Alton: Had I been rejected so badly by the people of Liverpool, I would not be standing here tonight. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) said that Lawrence Road school, Fairfield girls' school and Edge Hill boys' school had no A-level passes. They did not have sixth forms, so they could not have had A-level passes. That demonstrates his lack of understanding about those schools.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Liberal party created the problem. I return to my earlier statement that the problems were compounded. The falling birth rate and the decline of the population of the city were a direct result of the policy of bulldozing for which the Labour and Tory parties were responsible in Liverpool during the 1960s, which depopulated the city. That is why we brought forward two plans, which were both rejected, one by a Labour Government and the other by a Conservative Government. However, the plans were introduced in good faith as the Liberal group tried to tackle the problem.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Broadgreen I shall quote what one of his friends, the NUT local branch secretary in Liverpool, Jim Ferguson, said, as reported in The Guardian. He said:
Teaching in Liverpool's schools…is becoming almost impossible. The schools are visibly tatty and uncared for, particularly in the semi-derelict areas of the inner city; absenteeism amongst staff and children is high; vandalism out of school hours is common, and the children are so hyperactive in the inner city schools that they are at times virtually unteachable.
The article continues:
Even worse is the absolute conviction among the professionals that education policy is not being governed by concern for the children but by calculations of naked political advantage.
The article also said:
The Labour Party under the influence of the Militant Tendency remains equally committed to the principle of 11 to 18 neighbourhood comprehensive schools, regardless of sixth form size or the cost of maintaining half empty buildings, and apparently regardless of Labour's move nationally towards support for tertiary colleges for 16 to 19 year olds.

Mr. Fields: Jim Ferguson did not say that.

Mr. Alton: No, he did not. That was the report of Maureen O'Connor—

Mr. Fields: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House again.

Mr. Alton: —and it was she who made the final remarks to which I have referred. I made that clear as I was reading the article.
The proposals reduce the number of schools in Liverpool from 27 to 17. They abolish all single-sex schools, despite the fact that Labour says in the leaflet that it circulated to schools that it is opposed to racism and racial discrimination. It has taken no account of the needs of the Hindu or Moslem communities, which are totally opposed to the proposals. They want to send their daughters, as do many in the indigenous white community, to single-sex schools. Labour wants to reimpose rigid catchment areas. I give the example of Booker avenue school.

Mr. Parry: Lie.

Mr. Alton: Over the past 10 years, 652 children—

Mr. Parry: Lie.

Mr. Alton: —have gone to the Quarry bank school from Booker avenue school and 32 have gone to New Heyes school. As a result of the reimposition of rigid catchment areas, many children will be forced in future to go to New Heyes school, which has not happened in the past. In the inner city area at the other end of my constituency, children at schools like Rathbone county primary, Earle road county primary and Bral street county primary will have to go to community school three, as it is called. They will not have the chance to go to schools in the suburbs. This will lead to selectivity by the ability to pay.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) quite audibly to call my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) a liar on a number of occasions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It might have been audible at the end of the Chamber where the hon. Gentleman is sitting, but I could not quite tell whether the word was being used amid the hubbub from below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches. I could not hear what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) said. If he did use the word, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Parry: The remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, (Mr. Alton) are lies. Only this week—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. He must not attribute "liar" to any hon. Member. I think that he might find a different form of words to convey his meaning. He cannot use the word "liar", and he must withdraw it.

Mr. Parry: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. Only this week, in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), I was told that only about a dozen Moslem families were involved. I think that it is totally misleading—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am dealing with a point of order. I hope that implicit in the hon. Gentleman's remarks was a withdrawal of the offending word. I shall be glad if he will confirm that. I am assuming that when he says that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is misleading the House, he means that the hon. Gentleman may inadvertently have been doing so.

Mr. Parry: The hon. Gentleman is telling untruths.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we should move on. I am sure that the Minister wishes to reply to the debate.

Mr. Alton: I assure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), having received various delegations from schools in Liverpool and taken them to the Minister, that on many occasions the Minister has heard representatives of the ethnic minorities say that they believe that they will be prevented from having a choice of schools for their children as a result of the abolition of single-sex education. I am happy to leave it at that.
If this plan is implemented, we will replace selection by the ability to pass examinations with something far worse—the ability to pay. People who can afford to buy a house in the leafy suburbs can send their child to a local so-called community school, whereas people in the inner city cannot; they will have to send their children to the school in their area. The people who unfortunately live on the wrong side of the Maginot line must send their children to a school to which they do not want them to go. The effect on house prices needs only to be thought about to be easily realised.
The Under-Secretary will be aware that many of the consultation meetings were a charade. On one night alone, eight meetings were held, and many parents were treated to foul language, Marxist clap-trap and abuse. Parents were patronised and their views disregarded. In future, the Government must strengthen parental rights and ensure that, before such plans are submitted, the majority of parents' views should be agreed in local authority areas before the plans are submitted.
The Under-Secretary promised that any member of the LEA could see copies of the LEA's response to the objection. The chairman of the education committee refused to allow my colleague, Councillor Storey, to see the objections, which has led to deep suspicions in the city. How can that be rectified?
The Under-Secretary will have received the detailed reservations that Mr. Tony Ostrin, the solicitor acting on behalf of the parents action committee, outlined to him in a letter on 20 January. I would emphasise his objections to the legality of the scheme. The scheme seems to offend section 8 and 76 of the Education Act 1944, and section 6 of the Education Act 1980. It is contrary to the White Paper "New Drive" and circular 2/80 which talks about the timing of proposals. The scheme seems to be contrary to paragraph 25 of circular 2/80, which demands that detailed costings should be provided. Paragraph 26 of that circular states that reference should be made to alternative use of surplus buildings.
One of the reasons why certain schools have been chosen for closure is that they stand on prime residential sites, such as Hillfoot, Hey, Childwall, Valley girls' school, Aigburth girls' school and, in a future proposal, the Bluecoat school. Those good schools would be pulled down to make way for the 6,000 municipal dwellings that Labour says it will build in Liverpool using £12 million of inner city money. That is part of the complete socialisation of the city. Recently, the Labour party in Liverpool tried to take all 50 of the places available on school managing bodies locally. That is sheer political patronage. It is using education and children as political footballs. I would welcome the Under-Secretary's views on this.
I accept that the Secretary of State has a difficult task. I hope that he will consider, if he rejects these proposals,

sending in Her Majesty's inspectors to draw up an independent assessment of what would be a suitable, educationally based scheme for Liverpool and take this matter out of the political arena.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no power to stop the hon. Member. If he wants a reply, I remind him that the debate ends at 12 o'clock midnight.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that the Under-Secretary is in some difficulty about the length of the reply that he can give. I promise you that my remarks are coming to an end.
How can the Under-Secretary consider a plan that rides roughshod over the wishes of 70,000 objectors, over the wishes of 24 of the 27 schools affected and over the 1,000 letters sent to him direct? How can he agree to a plan that keeps open the Croxteth school which he ordered should be closed, that abolishes all single-sex schools and runs contrary to the principle of parental choice? How can he accept a plan that reimposes rigid catchment areas around primary schools? If he accepts the scheme, he will be putting his signature to a plan based on political dogma. It will be an unforgiveable act of political expediency, and the parents of future generations of Liverpudlians would never forgive him. He cannot support this scheme, and I urge him to say that he will not.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): In the few minutes that remain I can attempt to sketch the background of our response to these proposals. I undertake to reply separately to the specific points that have been raised which I do not have time to answer.
Hon. Members will realise and understand that my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role in these matters prevents me from commenting on the detailed points raised by the hon. Members about the proposals to reorganise Liverpool's secondary schools. What I can assure the House, however, is that he is giving those proposals his most careful consideration. As with all statutory proposals, he is considering them on their individual merits; and his eventual decision will take account of the arguments put forward by the objectors and the city council, the local circumstances of Liverpool, the educational and expenditure issues involved, and all other relevant matters.
I can also say that we have now received from the authority the objections and its comments on them. There are 47 statutory objections against the proposals supported by a petition bearing nearly 70,000 signatures; 51 other objections; and a petition bearing some 10,000 signatures in support of the proposals. I cannot at this stage say when my right hon. Friend will take his decision, but we fully accept the need for it to be made as quickly as possible, because the implementation date proposed is September of this year. We shall deal with the proposals as speedily as is consistent with the proper consideration of all the relevant facts.
I cannot say more about the proposals at this stage. However, it may assist hon. Members if, in responding to this debate, I refer by way of background to two broad groups of factors which form the context in which the proposals were made and are being considered.
First, there is the general historical and demographic context of educational provision in Liverpool. Underlying


the educational difficulties facing Liverpool is the problem of falling school rolls. This is a national phenomenon and not confined to Liverpool. On current estimates, the national school population will be below 7·5 million by the end of the decade, down by nearly 20 per cent. from its level in 1979. In Liverpool the problems are exacerbated because movement out of the area means that the city's population has fallen drastically from 746,000 in 1961 to 510,000 in 1981. Together, the falling population and the falling birth rate have led to a growing mismatch between the number of school places available and the demand for those places. Put simply, there are far more school places than pupils to fill them; and the surplus will grow dramatically in the years ahead if nothing is done.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is concerned with Liverpool's proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education. However, I want to put on record the fact that we must not lose sight of the equally pressing problems of spare capacity in the city's primary schools.
I think it fair to say that all concerned recognise the need for rationalisation of secondary provision in the city.

Mr. Parry: I want to put the record straight in the Official Report. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) appeared to be introducing racial undertones when he mentioned the Liverpool Moslem Association. I have spoken and written to the Minister on behalf of the Liverpool Moslem Association to ask whether he will receive a deputation. According to information I have received from the Liverpool education department, about one dozen families only are involved.

Mr. Dunn: I do not want to respond to that point at this stage. I should rather make some other points for the benefit of those outside who listen to the debate with interest.
Some progress has been made through the proposals from the city and the archdiocese for the reorganisation of Roman Catholic secondary schools approved by my right hon. Friend in August 1982. These proposals, implementted last September, reduced the number of Roman Catholic secondary schools from 41 to 15.
That was a move forward, but the problems in the county secondary sector are no less urgent. The authority's county secondary schools have a capacity of nearly 30,000 pupils. In 1978 there were 27,000 pupils aged 11–16 in these schools, and by 1983 that figure had fallen to only 22,000; by 1990 the number is expected to fall to less than 16,000. This clearly demonstrates the need for action: if nothing is done, Liverpool will be faced by the end of the decade with paying for two school places for every child of secondary age in its county schools.
However, it is not only the unnecessary financial burden which this surplus of school places imposes on Liverpool's ratepayers which is of concern to the House and the Department. The continuing existence of a sizeable surplus of school places has already had, and will increasingly have, serious consequences for the educational opportunities of all pupils. The worsening of educational opportunities will increasingly affect not only the schools which are now unpopular but also the schools which are currently popular.
These educational difficulties associated with empty school places are not, of course, unique to Liverpool, but my right hon. Friend spelt them out at length in his letter.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.